Hello:
I have made some of the required changes, but I have some questions.
See in-line for my resolution / questions for each comment.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 4:33 AM, Sergei Shtylyov
<sshtylyov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Shane McDonald wrote:
>
>> diff -uprN a/drivers/ide/it8172.c b/drivers/ide/it8172.c
>> --- a/drivers/ide/it8172.c 1969-12-31 18:00:00.000000000 -0600
>> +++ b/drivers/ide/it8172.c 2008-11-23 01:06:01.000000000 -0600
>> @@ -0,0 +1,205 @@
>> +/*
>> + *
>> + * BRIEF MODULE DESCRIPTION
>> + * IT8172 IDE controller support
>> + *
>> + * Copyright 2000 MontaVista Software Inc.
>> + * Author: MontaVista Software, Inc.
>> + * stevel@xxxxxxxxxx or source@xxxxxxxxxx
>>
>
> You can remove the former address, Steve Longerbeam is no longer with MV
> (quit long ago). And I think you may add your own copyright now.
OK, I will update accordingly.
>> +/*
>> + * Prototypes
>> + */
>
> I see no prototypes here...
Ah yes, the prototypes were removed, but not the comment. I will remove this.
>> +static void it8172_set_pio_mode(ide_drive_t *drive, const u8 pio)
>> +{
>> + ide_hwif_t *hwif = HWIF(drive);
>> + struct pci_dev *dev = to_pci_dev(hwif->dev);
>> + int is_slave = (&hwif->drives[1] == drive);
>
> Use simpler "drive->dn & 1" (and drop the useless parens please) -- & can
> be dropped though as the controller has only a single channel...
I don't believe it can be dropped entirely -- although the
controller only has a single channel, it does support two drives on
that channel. Unless I understand incorrectly, I will make the
"drive->dn & 1" change.
>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&ide_lock, flags);
>>
>
> Don't use ide_lock here please. Moreover, since the controller has only one
> channel, you don't need any spinlock here.
I will remove it, and the associated spin_unlock_irqrestore.
>> + pci_read_config_word(dev, 0x40, &drive_enables);
>> + pci_read_config_dword(dev, 0x44, &drive_timing);
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * FIX! The DIOR/DIOW pulse width and recovery times in port 0x44
>
> It's usually FIXME. :-)
I will change. Although, the change to the pulse width of DIOR/DIOW
doesn't seem that difficult to make. Maybe I should just go ahead and
do that.
>> + * are being left at the default values of 8 PCI clocks (242 nsec
>> + * for a 33 MHz clock).
>
> It's 240, not 242 ns as 33 is actually 33.333.
I will update the comment to reflect reality, unless I implement the FIXME.
>> These can be safely shortened at higher
>> + * PIO modes. The DIOR/DIOW pulse width and recovery times only
>> + * apply to PIO modes, not to the DMA modes.
>> + */
>
> Not true. They do apply to SW/MW DMA modes -- and if you look at your own
> code you'll see that.
Hmmm, that's right, that is what the code is doing. I will update the
comment accordingly.
>> + /*
>> + * Enable port 0x44. The IT8172 spec is confused; it calls
>> + * this register the "Slave IDE Timing Register", but in fact,
>> + * it controls timing for both master and slave drives.
>> + */
>> + drive_enables |= 0x4000;
>
> This is strange because this IDE controller seems to be a clone of the one
> in the Intel PIIX chip. However, the spec. I have tellm it's not an exact
> clone.
> I suggest that you take a close look at drivers/ide/piix.c...
The specs I have indicate that it is not the same. For example, bits
13:12 in the IDETIM register at offset 0x40-0x41 of the PIIX give the
IORDY Sample Point, but the same function is found in bits 19-17 in
the SLVT register at offset 0x44-0x47 in the IT8172. Perhaps better
comments are in order, or perhaps these bitfields should be defined in
a .h file?
>> + if (is_slave) {
>> + drive_enables &= 0xc006;
>> + if (pio > 1)
>> + /* enable prefetch and IORDY sample-point */
>> + drive_enables |= 0x0060;
>
> IORDY sampling shouldn't be enabled for PIO mode 2 always, only if the
> drive supports it.
> Prefetch should only be enabled for ATA disks, not the ATAPI devices
OK, I will update accordingly. Am I correct that prefetch should be
enabled if "drive->media == ide_disk", and not otherwise?
I am not sure how to determine if IORDY sampling is supported by a
drive. If I'm reading the code correctly, other drivers only check
that the PIO mode is > 2 (not > 1 as in my driver) -- that seems to be
the case for at least piix.c, siimage.c, and it8213.c.
>> +static void it8172_set_dma_mode(ide_drive_t *drive, const u8 speed)
>> +{
>> + ide_hwif_t *hwif = HWIF(drive);
>> + struct pci_dev *dev = to_pci_dev(hwif->dev);
>> + int a_speed = 3 << (drive->dn * 4);
>> + int u_flag = 1 << drive->dn;
>> + int u_speed = 0;
>> + u8 reg48, reg4a;
>> +
>> + const u8 mwdma_to_pio[] = { 0, 3, 4 };
>> + u8 pio;
>> +
>> + pci_read_config_byte(dev, 0x48, ®48);
>> + pci_read_config_byte(dev, 0x4a, ®4a);
>> +
>> + if (speed >= XFER_UDMA_0) {
>> +
>> + /* Setting the DMA cycle time to 2 or 3 PCI clocks
>> + * (60 and 91 nsec at 33 MHz PCI clock) seems to cause
>> + * BadCRC errors during DMA transfers on some drives,
>
> Sigh, such drives should have been blacklisted...
Do you think I should keep this code in here? It kind of seems silly
to run drivers at UDMA0 speeds just because of a few bad drives back
in 2000 when the driver was originally written. Should this not be
handled in userspace by hdparm? Other drivers don't seem to do
something similar.
>> + * even though both numbers meet the minimum ATAPI-4 spec
>> + * of 73 and 54 nsec for UDMA 1 and 2 respectively.
>> + * So the faster times are not implemented here.
>> + * The good news is that the slower cycle time has
>> + * very little affect on transfer performance.
>
> This should only affect the write performance, reads.
Unless it is decided to eliminate the slower-cycle-time feature (in
which case this comment would go away), I will update the comment
accordingly as per your clarified email.
>> + */
>> +
>> + u_speed = 0 << (drive->dn * 4);
>
> I think you're actually setting UltraDMA mode 2 timing regardless of the
> mode selected.
Yes, as you said in the follow-on email, this is being set to UDMA
mode 0 regardless of the mode selected, due to the preceeding
slower-cycle-time comment. I will await your response before changing
this.
> The below code only applies to non-UltraDMA modes.
>
>> + if (speed >= XFER_MW_DMA_0)
>> + pio = mwdma_to_pio[speed - XFER_MW_DMA_0];
>> + else
>> + pio = 2;
>> +
>> + it8172_set_pio_mode(drive, pio);
OK, I will only execute this code if it's a non-UDMA mode.
> Moreover, I'd suggest to reimplement it as the timing register layout is
> different from the original PIIX and additional DMA modes can be supported:
> MWDMA0 and SWDMA1.
I'm not quite sure what you mean. I'll implement something and get
your feedback.
>> +static unsigned int __devinit init_chipset_it8172(struct pci_dev *dev)
>> +{
>> + unsigned char progif;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Place both IDE interfaces into PCI "native" mode
>> + */
>> + pci_read_config_byte(dev, PCI_CLASS_PROG, &progif);
>> + pci_write_config_byte(dev, PCI_CLASS_PROG, progif | 0x05);
>> +
>> + return dev->irq;
>> +}
>>
>
> As Alan have said, you can't do that here.
I will remove this.
>> +static const struct ide_port_info it8172_chipset __devinitdata = {
>> + .name = DRV_NAME,
>> + .init_chipset = init_chipset_it8172,
>> + .port_ops = &it8172_port_ops,
>> + .enablebits = {{0x00, 0x00, 0x00}, {0x40, 0x00, 0x01} },
>>
>
> Wrong, should be:
>
> .enablebits = {{0x41, 0x80, 0x80}, {0x00, 0x00, 0x00}},
>
> If that doesn't work (firmware doesn't enable the channel), you can leave
> it all 0s...
Well, mine is clearly wrong. Am I correct that {0x41, 0x80, 0x80} is
checking that the IDE Decode Enable bit is set? This bit is in the
same location in both the PIIX and the IT8172.
>> .host_flags = IDE_HFLAG_SINGLE,
>> + .pio_mask = ATA_PIO4,
>> + .swdma_mask = ATA_SWDMA2_ONLY,
>> + .mwdma_mask = ATA_MWDMA12_ONLY,
>
> More modes are supportable...
I will update accordingly.
>> +static const struct ide_port_info it8172_chipset __devinitdata = {
>
> Please rename this variable to it8172_port_info.
I will update accordingly.
>> +};
>> +
>> +static int __devinit it8172_init_one(struct pci_dev *dev,
>> + const struct pci_device_id *id)
>> +{
>> + if ((!(PCI_FUNC(dev->devfn) & 1) ||
>> + (!((dev->class >> 8) == PCI_CLASS_STORAGE_IDE))))
>>
>
> Please, don't abuse parens, it should be just:
>
> if (!(PCI_FUNC(dev->devfn) & 1) ||
> (dev->class >> 8) != PCI_CLASS_STORAGE_IDE)
>
>
>> + return -ENODEV; /* IT8172 is more than an IDE controller
>> */
>>
>
> And I don't get it: why the first check is needed? Is there another IDE
> controller on function 1 that you want to ignore? I doubt it.
I will clean up the parens and remove the first check.
>> +MODULE_AUTHOR("SteveL@xxxxxxxxxx");
>
> I wonder why Steve didn't specify his full name... :-)
I will change this to my name.
> MBR, Sergei
Thank you for your time!
Shane
--
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
