Hello. Alan Cox wrote:
+#ifdef AT91_GPIO_IRQ_HACK +#define NR_TRIES 10 + int ntries = 0; + int pin_val1, pin_val2; + do { + pin_val1 = at91_get_gpio_value(AT91_PIN_PB20); + pin_val2 = at91_get_gpio_value(AT91_PIN_PB20); + } while (pin_val1 != pin_val2 && ntries++ < NR_TRIES);You really don't want to put special board specific code in generic locations. In the libata case you don't need to and I think in the ide case you can avoid it too by wrapping the IRQ handler.
Unfortunately, it seems you can't wrap ide_intr(), at least with the current code.
Libata also supports polled mode.
Yeah. Stanslaw, I'd (have to) advise going the libata way in this case -- in case you want to avoid the additional trouble of porting this broken-minded IRQ implementation to the IDE core... although the real issue seems to olny be with the development board.
Other comments: - The old and new ATA layers both have timing tables and timing functions so you don't need all the duplicated timing table logic.
Stanislaw's patch is adding the DIOx- to address hold time (t9) to the existing ones. While there's has been already a patch by David Daney adding this timing to libata (however, the author have ditched this idea finally), the table in ide-timings.c still misses it, as well as the PIO mode 6 timings... Hm, besides the address setup and active/recovery times there seem wrong for the PIO mode 5: they should be 15 and 65/25, not 20 and 50/30. Bart, are you reading this? :-)
WBR, Sergei -- 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
