On 05/10/2010 03:51 AM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
Hello.
Graeme Russ wrote:
Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
Hello.
Graeme Russ wrote:
[Added linux-ide back onto distribution list]
Right, I didn't intend to exclude it -- probably didn't press all the
keys at once for the reply-to-all function.
[...]
You should have also taught the symmetric ide-platfrom driver the same
trick. However, IDE core's data transfer methods has a different
prototype.
The IDE subsystem is deprecated and in maintenance mode, it shouldn't be
growing support for new hardware, which I assume this is.
I did think about the other drivers (OF Platform etc) but I have no
way of
testing them.
pata_of_platform is not easily extensible in this way. It gets all the
information about the device from the device tree -- and you can't
encode all your complications there, unless you invent a new OF device.
I suggest to rather add a new flag, indicating 8-bit data I/O, and
have
the alternate sff_data_xfer() method defined inside the driver.
The vast majority of implementations are 16-bit (no one has complained
about the lack of 8-bit support to date). I don't think the majority of
users should be carrying around the extra code for a tiny minority.
Yes, it
could be wrapped around an #ifdef but then things start to get ugly (why
not just ditch the flag and #ifdef the 8-bit transfers entirely, hack
Kconfig etc) eeewwwww....
I didn't propose any of this. Anyway, this is not an option anymore now
that we know enough about your hardware.
other devices on the bus). By overriding the data transfer function
I can
arbitrate access to the bus and switch the bus timings based on the
peripheral being accessed. This cannot be done be a generic data
transfer
function.
I disagree with your approach of overriding the libata methods at the
board level, so I suggest to write a new driver. This is too complicated
stuff for poor old pata_platform. :-)
My custom function to date looks like:
unsigned int ata_enet_data_xfer(struct ata_device *dev, unsigned char
*buf,
unsigned int buflen, int rw)
{
struct ata_port *ap = dev->link->ap;
void __iomem *data_addr = ap->ioaddr.data_addr;
set_gp_bus_slow();
/* Transfer bytes */
if (rw == READ)
ioread8_rep(data_addr, buf, buflen);
else
iowrite8_rep(data_addr, buf, buflen);
set_gp_bus_fast();
return buflen;
}
set_gp_bus_slow() and set_gp_bus_fast() (at the moment) simply set a few
config registers to set the GP bus timing (no arbitration yet, but these
functions will also handle that using a mutex). I don't see the point in
re-writing the entire PATA Platform driver when the existing driver
appears
to be perfectly capable with a very minor extension hook.
As I said, we *can't* implement the driver methods at the board level.
Especially if they involve messing with timings -- that's the point
where the ATA driver stops being generic, like pata_platform, and there
arises a need for the dedicated driver. Also, your patch would bring in
disparity with the ide-platfrom driver (which should be interchangeable
with pata_platfrom). For me, the need of a separate driver is clear now,
so I'll remain opposed to your patch. Of course, the maintainer (Jeff
Garzik) will decide but if I could veto this patch I would.
I think there's a case to be made for doing some refactoring to allow
splitting the code related to this hardware into a different file or
something. However, creating an entirely different driver when the only
thing different from pata_platform is that function seems excessive.
--
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
