> Early SATA controllers are just PATA controllers in disguise. All SFF > controllers want that 400ns delay. The 400ns delay should -not- be avoided. Its a signalling protocol requirement for PATA or a PATA controller with a PATA/SATA bridge. What makes you think a SATA controller cares one iota ? > Because several SATA controllers are SFF and use the code in question, > the MMIO issue is relevant for the code change, even if it is irrelevant > to drivers/ata/pata_*.c. and to SATA. It's simply not relevant at a protocol level to SATA which is message passing anyway. -- 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
