Alan Cox wrote:
>>> +/* 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?
>
> No.. its essetially 'Here by Dragons', and to see if people actually read
> patch comments 8)
Ah.. Okay. English word games and Latin phrases scare me. :-)
>>> +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?
>
> Not really fussed either way. Up to Jeff I guess.
The thing is ata_dma_enabled(dev) looks like it's testing whether the
device is capable of doing DMA while 'using' explicitly indicates the
current configuration. Well, no biggie either way.
--
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
