Hello.
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz 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).
Oh, you must be meaning that brain damaged Disk-On-Chip H3... but I
don't think it would need to wrap ide_intr() as it should have its own
"class driver" (like ide-disk).
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.
We need to add support for CFA's MWDMA modes 3 and 4 then as well...
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? :-)
I was not feeling confident because the address setup and recovery
times defined by CF spec. are less than those we have (that were spec'ed
by Quantum I guess?). However, Wikipedia's article about PIO tells me
that no PIO5 capable hard disks were manufactured...
Thanks,
Bart
MBR, 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
