Hello. On 08/08/2013 10:58 PM, Marc C wrote:
How about non-AHCI FIS-based controllers?
Right. Since it's cost prohibitive for me to test exhaustively on non-AHCI FIS-based controllers, do you think it would be acceptable to
You can mark your patch as RFT (request for testing) in this case.
add a new ATA host flag... something like, ATA_FLAG_AHCI, which would denote the controller as being AHCI-based? Then the flag could be used to gate processing of READ/WRITE/SEND/RECEIVE FPDMA commands that have the 'auxiliary' field set. Or, I could add a big fat warning print whenever an ata_queued_cmd is passed to the drivers with a non-zero 'auxiliary' value.
I was rather thinking about a flag (ATA_FLAG_FIS_BASED, maybe) marking a controller as FIS-based, so that libata would know whether it can issue the new commands using the 'auxiliary' value.
Regards, Marc
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
