On 1/6/22 00:36, Paul Menzel wrote:
> The new name is longer, but clearer.
>
> Signed-off-by: Paul Menzel <pmenzel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/ata/ahci_brcm.c | 2 +-
> drivers/ata/libata-sata.c | 2 +-
> include/linux/libata.h | 2 +-
> 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/ata/ahci_brcm.c b/drivers/ata/ahci_brcm.c
> index 6e9c5ade4c2ea..649815c196ed0 100644
> --- a/drivers/ata/ahci_brcm.c
> +++ b/drivers/ata/ahci_brcm.c
> @@ -333,7 +333,7 @@ static struct ata_port_operations ahci_brcm_platform_ops = {
>
> static const struct ata_port_info ahci_brcm_port_info = {
> .flags = AHCI_FLAG_COMMON | ATA_FLAG_NO_DIPM,
> - .link_flags = ATA_LFLAG_NO_DB_DELAY,
> + .link_flags = ATA_LFLAG_NO_DEBOUNCE_DELAY,
> .pio_mask = ATA_PIO4,
> .udma_mask = ATA_UDMA6,
> .port_ops = &ahci_brcm_platform_ops,
> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-sata.c b/drivers/ata/libata-sata.c
> index b9c77885b8726..67b2e7cf3cc4e 100644
> --- a/drivers/ata/libata-sata.c
> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-sata.c
> @@ -317,7 +317,7 @@ int sata_link_resume(struct ata_link *link, const unsigned long *params,
> * immediately after resuming. Delay 200ms before
> * debouncing.
> */
> - if (!(link->flags & ATA_LFLAG_NO_DB_DELAY))
> + if (!(link->flags & ATA_LFLAG_NO_DEBOUNCE_DELAY))
> ata_msleep(link->ap, 200);
>
> /* is SControl restored correctly? */
> diff --git a/include/linux/libata.h b/include/linux/libata.h
> index 2a8404b26083c..15802e644962d 100644
> --- a/include/linux/libata.h
> +++ b/include/linux/libata.h
> @@ -191,7 +191,7 @@ enum {
> ATA_LFLAG_NO_LPM = (1 << 8), /* disable LPM on this link */
> ATA_LFLAG_RST_ONCE = (1 << 9), /* limit recovery to one reset */
> ATA_LFLAG_CHANGED = (1 << 10), /* LPM state changed on this link */
> - ATA_LFLAG_NO_DB_DELAY = (1 << 11), /* no debounce delay on link resume */
> + ATA_LFLAG_NO_DEBOUNCE_DELAY = (1 << 11), /* no debounce delay on link resume */
>
> /* struct ata_port flags */
> ATA_FLAG_SLAVE_POSS = (1 << 0), /* host supports slave dev */
I applied both patches to for-5.17 (sorry, I am late, this fell through
the cracks...).
I simplified the commit messages though, especially patch 2, since the
main point of that patch is to introduce support for a new controller
rather than discussing the debounce delay thingy.
If you are OK with it, I will reuse your well written commit message for
a patch removing the debounce delay though :) Working on it now, I will
post something by week end after testing.
--
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research
