Jens Axboe wrote:
> OK, something like this. Jeff, if you think this is fine, let me know
> and I'll submit a proper patch with description and so on.
FWIW, looks good to me. Just one small concern below...
> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
> index 79e3a8e..879ceac 100644
> --- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
> @@ -2100,6 +2100,10 @@ retry:
> static inline u8 ata_dev_knobble(struct ata_device *dev)
> {
> struct ata_port *ap = dev->link->ap;
> +
> + if (ata_dev_blacklisted(dev) & ATA_HORKAGE_BRIDGE_OK)
> + return 0;
> +
> return ((ap->cbl == ATA_CBL_SATA) && (!ata_id_is_sata(dev->id)));
> }
>
> @@ -3998,6 +4002,9 @@ static const struct ata_blacklist_entry ata_device_blacklist [] = {
> { "TSSTcorp CDDVDW SH-S202N", "SB00", ATA_HORKAGE_IVB, },
> { "TSSTcorp CDDVDW SH-S202N", "SB01", ATA_HORKAGE_IVB, },
>
> + /* Devices that do not need bridging limits applied */
> + { "Mtron", NULL, 0, },
"Mtron" looks like a broad match but then again for some reason many
non-traditional ATA vendors don't like to give descriptive
identifications to their devices. Any chance there is something more to
match? :-(
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
