Re: [PATCH] libata_acpi: A different strategy for using ACPI information

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> Looks fairly reasonable to me. However, I suspect any use of _GTM is 
> somewhat dangerous (at least after the resume) unless we use the _STM 
> and _GTF methods in the proper sequence when resuming. (Is that in the 
> -mm tree now?)

Yes - and we only use it in these drivers to check for cable evidence not
for anything more serious.

> speed we give it is valid, since there is no sane way for the function 
> to indicate failure. (Thus the problem with the "cram in all possible 
> values to see what it supports" strategy for determining mode limits..)

The spec I have says it'll hand back the mode it actually uses which is
effectively a solution for 'failure'
-
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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux RAID]     [Git]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Linux Newbie]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux