On Thu, 29 May 2008, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > > > It may be that you meant to make it an "else if" case, ie if there was no > > IO-read, then you do a ndelay(400) as a last desperate case, but that's not > > how your ata_sdd_sync() is actually written. > > The double-ndelay is definitely wrong, but we do need one. Technically it > should -only- be a 400ns delay, but we also have a register read in there to > make sure any posted writes are flushed. Well, but the "read + delay" is already in ata_sdd_pause(). So it's "ata_sdd_sync()" that I think is bogus. Based on its name alone, it shouldn't have a delay in it (except, as mentioned, possibly for the fallback case where no port can be used for reading). Linus -- 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
