On Sunday 08 February 2009, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> Hello, I wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> +void at91_ide_tf_load(ide_drive_t *drive, ide_task_t *task)
> >>>>>>> +{
> >>>>>>> + ide_hwif_t *hwif = drive->hwif;
> >>>>>>> + struct ide_io_ports *io_ports = &hwif->io_ports;
> >>>>>>> + struct ide_taskfile *tf = &task->tf;
> >>>>>>> + u8 HIHI = (task->tf_flags & IDE_TFLAG_LBA48) ? 0xE0 : 0xEF;
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> + if (task->tf_flags & IDE_TFLAG_FLAGGED)
> >>>>>>> + HIHI = 0xFF;
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> + if (task->tf_flags & IDE_TFLAG_OUT_DATA) {
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sigh. Bart, couldn't we drop that stupid flag? I bet nobody
> >>>>>> ever used it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> It is there for HDIO_DRIVE_TASKFILE ioctl and I prefer not to
> >>>>> break it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Just add ->{read,write}_data methods for IDE_TFLAG_{IN,OUT}_DATA
> >>>>> to struct
> >>>>> ide_tp_ops -- it should also help some other host drivers like
> >>>>> tx493*.
> >>>>>
> >>>> That would be extremely senseless activity sicne I believe this
> >>>> flag is totally useless. I have better thing to do. :-)
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I would love to remove this flag but it is used by user-space exposed
> >>> interface
> >>
> >> I know that...
> >>
> >>> (which was used by few drive vendors for their diagnostics
> >>> tools -- doesn't matter whether internal or external) so you should put
> >>> some technical arguments behind its removal (you know many of low-level
> >>> technical details better than me so I may be missing something which is
> >>> obvious to you).
> >>>
> >>
> >> Well, the vendors can do strange things, of course...
> >> However, accessing the data register is certainly not a part of any
> >> ATA/PI defined command's inputs/outputs (the corresponding tables
> >> just don't have this register). I suspect that this flag was added
> >> just "for completeness".
> >>
> >>> OTOH while ->{read,write}_data approach would result in something like
> >>> ~50 extra LOC (or even less with be_tp_ops) compared to removal it is
> >>> completely safe and we don't need to spend a single second wondering
> >>> about potential breakage
> >>
> >> Go for it. ;-)
> >
> > I think I have a better idea than creating another (useless) couple
> > of "transport" methods. Why not (ab)use the exisitng
> > {in|out}put_data() methods instead? :-)
Good idea.
> Besides, those methods are clearly subject to some size
> optimization... I'll cook up a patch while I'm at it. :-)
:)
--
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
