On 08/08/2013 11:03 PM, Sergei Shtylyov 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.
Perhaps we can test for the presence of one of the sff_*() methods as a
negative condition for the controller being FIS-based.
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
