Hi,
On Friday 16 January 2009, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> 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.
Well... there shouldn't be much problem with:
* adding ->irq_handler method to struct ide_port_info and struct ide_host
[ which reminds me that struct ide_port_info would be better named struct
ide_host_info and IIRC somebody has already noticed it in the past ;-) ]
* exporting ide_intr()
* adding ide_interrupt() wrapper around ide_intr() which will do sth like:
if (host->irq_handler)
return host->irq_handler()
else
return ide_intr()
and then passing &ide_interrupt instead of &ide_intr to request_irq()
* implementing at91_irq_handler()
* Et Voila!
In the longer term it would also be useful for other purposes
(like adding ATA-like flash devices support to IDE).
> > 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.
Enhancing pata_at32 seems to be also a good idea but at91_ide
looks almost ready for merge, is clean and relatively simple.
I think that the only things needing fixing before merge are:
- IRQ hack
- not using IDE_TIMINGS
and both should be easy to address IMHO.
> > 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...
Indeed... should be easy and quick to fix though.
> 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? :-)
Yeah. Where's the patch? :-)
Thanks,
Bart
--
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
