> Why the *hell* doesn't it just fix "ata_sff_altstatus()" instead? Why does > it introduce a ludicrously named stupid "maybe" version of it that doesn't > oops? Ok the problem is we have three cases to distinguish - altstatus must be used - in which case we want to blow up anyway if we touch it (the usual case) - altstatus should be used if available - shared IRQ check - altstatus being used for flushing - altstatus irrelevant, it just has to flush somehow. So the _maybe naming sucks, but the reasoning I think is sound. The other way to do it would be to replace it and the bit of irq handler logic with an ata_sff_busy() that did the status checks correctly for both ctl and non-ctl capable devices. > 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 ndelay(400) is correct. The IO-read is Jeff being paranoid and actually hurts us materially for the usual PIO case (bus PIO not disk PIO) to the tune of about 1mS a command in many cases, but is needed for MMIO (which we almost never do for any SFF hardware). That itself is a different problem that can be fixed later (and not in -rc5). It wants fixing as its a key reason that old IDE is still faster for PATA. maybe_altstatus is crap naming but simply making ata_sff_altstatus fake a reply in arbitary cases risks not catching mistakes and could mean we don't catch corrupting mistakes which would be very bad indeed. -- 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
