On Sunday 13 March 2022 21:38:10 Sergey Shtylyov wrote:
> Hello!
>
> On 3/12/22 5:44 PM, Ondrej Zary wrote:
>
> > The pata_parport is a libata-based replacement of the old PARIDE
> > subsystem - driver for parallel port IDE devices.
> > It uses the original paride low-level protocol drivers but does not
> > need the high-level drivers (pd, pcd, pf, pt, pg). The IDE devices
> > behind parallel port adapters are handled by the ATA layer.
> >
> > This will allow paride and its high-level drivers to be removed.
> >
> > paride and pata_parport are mutually exclusive because the compiled
> > protocol drivers are incompatible.
> >
> > Tested with Imation SuperDisk LS-120 and HP C4381A (both use EPAT
> > chip).
> >
> > Note: EPP-32 mode is buggy in EPAT - and also in all other protocol
> > drivers - they don't handle non-multiple-of-4 block transfers
> > correctly. This causes problems with LS-120 drive.
> > There is also another bug in EPAT: EPP modes don't work unless a 4-bit
> > or 8-bit mode is used first (probably some initialization missing?).
> > Once the device is initialized, EPP works until power cycle.
> >
> > So after device power on, you have to:
> > echo "parport0 epat 0" >/sys/bus/pata_parport/new_device
> > echo pata_parport.0 >/sys/bus/pata_parport/delete_device
> > echo "parport0 epat 4" >/sys/bus/pata_parport/new_device
> > (autoprobe will initialize correctly as it tries the slowest modes
> > first but you'll get the broken EPP-32 mode)
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ondrej Zary <linux@xxxxxxx>
> [...]
> > diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/blockdev/paride.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/blockdev/paride.rst
> > index e1ce90af602a..e431a1ef41eb 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/blockdev/paride.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/blockdev/paride.rst
> [...]
> > diff --git a/drivers/ata/pata_parport.c b/drivers/ata/pata_parport.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..783764626a27
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/drivers/ata/pata_parport.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,819 @@
> [...]
> > +static void pata_parport_lost_interrupt(struct ata_port *ap)
> > +{
> > + u8 status;
> > + struct ata_queued_cmd *qc;
> > +
> > + /* Only one outstanding command per SFF channel */
> > + qc = ata_qc_from_tag(ap, ap->link.active_tag);
> > + /* We cannot lose an interrupt on a non-existent or polled command */
> > + if (!qc || qc->tf.flags & ATA_TFLAG_POLLING)
> > + return;
> > + /*
> > + * See if the controller thinks it is still busy - if so the command
> > + * isn't a lost IRQ but is still in progress
> > + */
> > + status = pata_parport_check_altstatus(ap);
> > + if (status & ATA_BUSY)
> > + return;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * There was a command running, we are no longer busy and we have
> > + * no interrupt.
> > + */
> > + ata_port_warn(ap, "lost interrupt (Status 0x%x)\n", status);
> > + /* Run the host interrupt logic as if the interrupt had not been lost */
> > + ata_sff_port_intr(ap, qc);
> > +}
>
> As I said, ata_sff_lost_interrupt() could be used instead...
It couldn't be used because it calls ata_sff_altstatus().
> [...]
> > +static void pi_remove_one(struct device *dev)
> > +{
> > + struct ata_host *host = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> > + struct pi_adapter *pi = host->private_data;
> > +
> > + ata_host_detach(host);
> > + del_timer_sync(&pi->timer);
> > + if (pi->claimed) {
> > + pi->proto->disconnect(pi);
> > + parport_release(pi->pardev);
> > + }
>
> This duplicates most of pci_disconnect_timer(), worth factoring out?
>
> > + pi_release(pi);
> > + device_unregister(dev);
> > + ida_free(&pata_parport_bus_dev_ids, dev->id);
> > + /* pata_parport_dev_release will do kfree(pi) */
> > +}
> [...]
> > diff --git a/include/linux/pata_parport.h b/include/linux/pata_parport.h
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..f1ba57bb319c
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/include/linux/pata_parport.h
> > @@ -0,0 +1,108 @@
> > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */
> > +/*
> > + * pata_parport.h (c) 1997-8 Grant R. Guenther <grant@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > + * Under the terms of the GPL.
> > + *
> > + * This file defines the interface for parallel port IDE adapter chip drivers.
> > + */
> > +
> > +#include <linux/libata.h>
> > +
> > +#define PI_PCD 1 /* dummy for paride protocol modules */
> > +
> > +struct pi_adapter {
> > + struct device dev;
> > + struct pi_protocol *proto; /* adapter protocol */
> > + int port; /* base address of parallel port */
> > + int mode; /* transfer mode in use */
> > + int delay; /* adapter delay setting */
> > + int devtype; /* dummy for paride protocol modules */
> > + char *device; /* dummy for paride protocol modules */
> > + int unit; /* unit number for chained adapters */
> > + int saved_r0; /* saved port state */
> > + int saved_r2; /* saved port state */
> > + unsigned long private; /* for protocol module */
> > + struct pardevice *pardev; /* pointer to pardevice */
> > + bool claimed; /* parport has already been claimed */
> > + struct timer_list timer; /* disconnect timer */
> > +};
> > +
> > +typedef struct pi_adapter PIA; /* for paride protocol modules */
> > +
> > +/* registers are addressed as (cont,regr)
> > + * cont: 0 for command register file, 1 for control register(s)
> > + * regr: 0-7 for register number.
> > + */
> > +
> > +/* macros and functions exported to the protocol modules */
> > +#define delay_p (pi->delay ? udelay(pi->delay) : (void)0)
> > +#define out_p(offs, byte) do { outb(byte, pi->port + offs); delay_p; } while (0)
> > +#define in_p(offs) (delay_p, inb(pi->port + offs))
> > +
> > +#define w0(byte) out_p(0, byte)
> > +#define r0() (in_p(0) & 0xff)
> > +#define w1(byte) out_p(1, byte)
> > +#define r1() (in_p(1) & 0xff)
> > +#define w2(byte) out_p(2, byte)
> > +#define r2() (in_p(2) & 0xff)
> > +#define w3(byte) out_p(3, byte)
> > +#define w4(byte) out_p(4, byte)
> > +#define r4() (in_p(4) & 0xff)
> > +#define w4w(data) do { outw(data, pi->port + 4); delay_p; } while (0)
> > +#define w4l(data) do { outl(data, pi->port + 4); delay_p; } while (0)
> > +#define r4w() (delay_p, inw(pi->port + 4) & 0xffff)
> > +#define r4l() (delay_p, inl(pi->port + 4) & 0xffffffff)
> > +
>
> I still don't think all this masking achieves anything...
It comes from old paride.h. I'll drop the masking. I will delete this completely after paride removal.
> > +static inline u16 pi_swab16(char *b, int k)
> > +{
> > + union { u16 u; char t[2]; } r;
> > +
> > + r.t[0] = b[2 * k + 1]; r.t[1] = b[2 * k];
> > + return r.u;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline u32 pi_swab32(char *b, int k)
> > +{
> > + union { u32 u; char f[4]; } r;
> > +
> > + r.f[0] = b[4 * k + 1]; r.f[1] = b[4 * k];
> > + r.f[2] = b[4 * k + 3]; r.f[3] = b[4 * k + 2];
> > + return r.u;
>
> Hey, I was serious about swab{16|32}p()! Please don't use home grown byte
> swapping...
This crap comes from old paride.h and we can't get rid of it without touching the protocol drivers (comm.c and kbic.c). Maybe use something like:
#define pi_swab16(char *b, int k) swab16p((u16 *)&b[2 * k])
but I'm not sure it's equivalent on a big-endian machine.
> [...]
>
> MBR, Sergey
>
--
Ondrej Zary
