Linus Torvalds wrote:
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().
Right, that's what I meant by double-ndelay.
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).
Agreed,
Jeff
--
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
