Hello, On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 03:04:55PM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote: > diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c > index 3c09122bf038..921c2813af07 100644 > --- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c > +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c > @@ -2045,6 +2045,8 @@ int ata_dev_read_id(struct ata_device *dev, unsigned int *p_class, > if (ata_msg_warn(ap)) > ata_dev_warn(dev, "failed to IDENTIFY (%s, err_mask=0x%x)\n", > reason, err_mask); > + if (ap->host->ops->port_recovery) > + ap->host->ops->port_recovery(ap); > return rc; > } This is a really weird spot to add a callback named port_recovery(). Can't the affected driver simply implement its own ata_port_operations->read_id() operation which does the recovery if necessary? 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
