Jens Axboe wrote:
> Given that this problem should be going away and that it only really
> matters on very select devices (like this SSD), I think we should just
> add a quick white list for the bridge limits.
Yeah, it sucks that up & coming SSDs are still using PATA-SATA bridges.
The expectation when adding the wildcard limitation was that those P/S
bridges are not gonna be around for too long and the limit is most
likely not be an actual problem. Oh well...
> Below is a quick'n dirty for that...
>
> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
> index 79e3a8e..fe8033a 100644
> --- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
> @@ -2097,9 +2097,70 @@ retry:
> return rc;
> }
>
> +struct ata_blacklist_entry {
> + const char *model_num;
> + const char *model_rev;
> + unsigned long horkage;
> +};
> +
> +static const struct ata_blacklist_entry ata_bridge_whitelist[] = {
> + /*
> + * The following devices sit behind a bridge, but don't need
> + * transfer rate or size limits applied.
> + */
> + { "Mtron", },
> +
> + /* End Marker */
> + { }
> +};
Any reason this can't be part of the existing blacklist? It already
supports wildcard matching and all.
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
