Jeff Garzik wrote: > Tejun Heo wrote: >> So, I don't think the problem exists for SATA in the first place. At >> least there hasn't been any report of it and doing SETXFER by polling >> can handle all the existing cases. We can and probably should deal with >> such SATA devices when and if they come up. How are we gonna verify the >> controller doesn't crap itself and ahci TF register monitoring HSM can >> work around the weirdo when we don't have any such device? Even if we >> determine that we need to do HSM over intelligent SATA controller now, I >> think we still need to push polling SETXFER first to take care of the >> existing cases. > > Doing SETXFER by polling only handles the cases where the driver > actually honors ATA_TFLAG_POLLING, which is /not/ always the case. > > If the new policy ensures that it continues to be OK to /not/ honor > ATA_TFLAG_POLLING -- thus limiting SETXFER polling assumptions to older > hardware -- that's fine, and it merely needs to be documented. Basically this flag applies to drivers which is SFF compliant, at least at TF interface level. There also are other flags/callbacks which only apply to SFF or BMDMA. It would be nice to separate them out in the long term and yeah it needs documentation. > But let us not make the assumption that this bandaid fixes all cases, > because the bandaid is not applied in all cases. It covers all the known cases but I agree that SFF specific things certainly need documentation. Thanks. -- 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
