Sat, 23 Aug 2014 12:53:26 -0400 от Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> Hello,
>
> On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 02:46:12PM +0400, Alexander Shiyan wrote:
> > In some cases, system bus can be configured for 16-bit mode, in this
> > case using of read/write functions for the 32 bit values causes two
> > cycles of 16 bits, which is incorrect.
>
> Shouldn't we distinguish them instead of forcing 16bit transfer on
> all?
I do not see any reason to distinguish. This embodiment can be used with
16-bit and 32-bit bus, and even for 64-bit ;)
...
> > +static unsigned int pata_platform_xfer_noirq(struct ata_device *dev,
> > + unsigned char *buf,
> > + unsigned int buflen, int rw)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > + unsigned int consumed;
> > +
> > + local_irq_save(flags);
> > + /* Use 16-bit transfer */
> > + consumed = ata_sff_data_xfer(dev, buf, buflen, rw);
> > + local_irq_restore(flags);
> > +
> > + return consumed;
> > +}
>
> This doesn't seem like a good location for this function. Please
> rename the existing noirq function to xfer32_noriq and add generic
> xfer_noirq for 16bit xfers.
Ok.
---
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{��'^�)�� jg��� �����ݢj����G���� ���j:+v���w�m������w�������h�����٥
