Hello.
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
On Monday 18 January 2010 08:28:22 pm Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [PATCH] ide: add drive->pio_mode field
Add pio_mode field to ide_drive_t matching pio_mode field used in
struct ata_device.
The validity of the field is restricted to ->set_pio_mode method
only currently in IDE subsystem.
Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/ide/ide-devsets.c | 2 ++
drivers/ide/ide-probe.c | 2 ++
drivers/ide/ide-xfer-mode.c | 3 +++
include/linux/ide.h | 1 +
4 files changed, 8 insertions(+)
Index: b/drivers/ide/ide-devsets.c
===================================================================
--- a/drivers/ide/ide-devsets.c
+++ b/drivers/ide/ide-devsets.c
@@ -105,6 +105,8 @@ static int set_pio_mode(ide_drive_t *dri
return -ENOSYS;
if (set_pio_mode_abuse(drive->hwif, arg)) {
+ drive->pio_mode = arg + XFER_PIO_0;
+
Er, didn't understand this... these 'arg' values are not really PIO
modes, no?
In the usual case they are
But after set_pio_mode_abuse() returned non-zero we know it's not
usual case, no?
and a few 'special' ->set_pio_mode implementations
will extract the desired 'arg' value just fine by doing '- XFER_PIO_0'..
I don't understand why we should change drive->pio_mode if we know
it's not a PIO mode but "abuse value". Perhaps you're dropping the mode
argument from set_pio_mode() in some of the next patches? Doesn't seem a
good idea, given that this "abuse case" still exist...
--
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
WBR, 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
