Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
Hello, I wrote:
When checking for CFA feature set support, ata_id_is_cfa() tests bit 2 in word 82 of the identify data instead the word 83. It also checks the ATA revision in the word 80 instead of usual validity check for the words 82-83 -- word 83 bit 14 set, bit 15 cleared.
Signed-off-by: Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--- I'm not sure who should queue this patch... it's against Linus' tree.
include/linux/ata.h | 5 ++--- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/ata.h =================================================================== --- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/ata.h +++ linux-2.6/include/linux/ata.h @@ -734,9 +734,8 @@ static inline int ata_id_is_cfa(const u1 if (id[ATA_ID_CONFIG] == 0x848A) /* Standard CF */ return 1; /* Could be CF hiding as standard ATA */ - if (ata_id_major_version(id) >= 3 && - id[ATA_ID_COMMAND_SET_1] != 0xFFFF && - (id[ATA_ID_COMMAND_SET_1] & (1 << 2))) + if ((id[ATA_ID_COMMAND_SET_2] & 0xC000) == 0x4000 && + (id[ATA_ID_COMMAND_SET_2] & (1 << 2))) return 1; return 0; }
Jeff, Bart, I've changed my mind about recasting this patch as Alan has requested, as I do consider it correct now. The version check should be unnecessary since I'm adding the validity bits check (hte fact that ata_id_major_complex() is quite cumbesome way of checking the minumum revision # -- this can be done with a single comparison instead of the bit scan). Note that words 64-127 were marked reserved, and must be set to 0 since ATA-1. Have your say please -- do I still need to recast the patch?
I'm fine with the current version -- validity checking should take care of handling reserved words (even if they are set to 0xff) and we can always add more detailed checks later if necessary (which is very unlikely)...
The only improvement it needs is referring to the CF specs on why the version check wasn't really ever correct.
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
