On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 11:03:55PM +0400, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > 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. I'm not sure whether checking whether a controller is FIS based would be enough. sil24 is clearly FIS based but it snoops the command code and likely to choke on commands which it doesn't know about. I think the best way to deal with it would be having a feature flag on the host / port and setting it on controllers known to work. In practice, just enabling it on ahci's should cover most use cases from now on anyway. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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
