Alan Cox wrote: > The IT821x firmware mode isn't smart enough to pass the post bus reset > checks that libata does so allow it to be over-ridden. Not sure this is > the best long term solution but it'll do for now. > > Possibly a better option would be a libata-eh set of methods for > controllers where we don't want to reset and re-identify devices. > > Signed-off-by: Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxx> > > diff -u --new-file --recursive --exclude-from /usr/src/exclude linux.vanilla-2.6.22-rc1-mm1/drivers/ata/libata-core.c linux-2.6.22-rc1-mm1/drivers/ata/libata-core.c > --- linux.vanilla-2.6.22-rc1-mm1/drivers/ata/libata-core.c 2007-05-18 16:22:53.000000000 +0100 > +++ linux-2.6.22-rc1-mm1/drivers/ata/libata-core.c 2007-05-18 16:40:23.000000000 +0100 > @@ -3128,7 +3135,10 @@ > if (ata_check_status(ap) == 0xFF) > return -ENODEV; > > - return ata_bus_post_reset(ap, devmask, deadline); > + if (ap->ops->bus_post_reset) > + return ap->ops->bus_post_reset(ap, devmask, deadline); > + else > + return ata_bus_post_reset(ap, devmask, deadline); > } ata_bus_post_reset() is a separate function only because it was written that way at the beginning. It's really not a separate logical API and I was thinking of folding it into ata_bus_softreset() or ata_std_softreset() after old EH is gone. Also it's a bit ugly to call ap->ops->* from a ap->ops callback. I think the correct solution here is to write a separate ->softreset method. Hmmm... I guess what's failing is the nsect==1 && lbal==1 test, right? Jeff, do we really need that test? dev0 doesn't clear BSY till PDIAG- is asserted from dev1 anyway. Maybe just limit the waiting there to a few secs? -- tejun - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
