Hello, Alan.
Yeap, this approach looks much better. Just few nits.
Alan Cox wrote:
> @@ -1427,6 +1427,28 @@ static inline unsigned long ata_deadline(unsigned long from_jiffies,
> return from_jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(timeout_msecs);
> }
>
> +/* Don't open code these in drivers as there are traps. Firstly the range may
> + change in future hardware and specs, secondly 0xFF means 'no DMA' but is
> + > UDMA_0. Dyma ddreigiau */
I suppose "Dyma ddreigiau" is just contamination? Also, can you please
use similar patch formatting as other comments for consistency?
> +static inline int ata_using_mwdma(struct ata_device *adev)
> +{
> + if (adev->dma_mode >= XFER_MW_DMA_0 && adev->dma_mode <= XFER_MW_DMA_4)
> + return 1;
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static inline int ata_using_udma(struct ata_device *adev)
> +{
> + if (adev->dma_mode >= XFER_UDMA_0 && adev->dma_mode <= XFER_UDMA_7)
> + return 1;
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static inline int ata_dma_enabled(struct ata_device *adev)
> +{
> + return (adev->dma_mode == 0xFF ? 0 : 1);
> +}
Wouldn't it be better to use ata_using_dma() instead like the other two?
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
