Dear Damien,
Am 07.12.22 um 16:15 schrieb Damien Le Moal:
On 12/7/22 22:26, Paul Menzel wrote:
Am 07.12.22 um 14:22 schrieb Damien Le Moal:
On 12/7/22 19:26, Paul Menzel wrote:
Fixes: commit ea08aec7e77b ("libata: add ATA_HORKAGE_NOLPM for Pioneer BDR-207M and BDR-205")
Cc: Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Paul Menzel <pmenzel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/ata/libata-core.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
index d3ce5c383f3a..c08c534b7fc7 100644
--- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
+++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
@@ -3990,8 +3990,8 @@ static const struct ata_blacklist_entry ata_device_blacklist [] = {
{ "PIONEER DVD-RW DVR-216D", NULL, ATA_HORKAGE_NOSETXFER },
/* These specific Pioneer models have LPM issues */
- { "PIONEER BD-RW BDR-207M", NULL, ATA_HORKAGE_NOLPM },
{ "PIONEER BD-RW BDR-205", NULL, ATA_HORKAGE_NOLPM },
+ { "PIONEER BD-RW BDR-207M", NULL, ATA_HORKAGE_NOLPM },
Nah... Not worse the trouble. If anything, I would rather have the entire
ata_device_blacklist array entries sorted alphabetically by vendor and models.
What trouble?
Manner of speaking. I meant the patch value is not worth the time to
process it.
As suggested, sorting the entire array would be a more valuable change.
Understood. (I guess perfect is the enemy of the good – also as seen
with my other patch from which other users can’t benefit.) :/
/* Crucial BX100 SSD 500GB has broken LPM support */
{ "CT500BX100SSD1", NULL, ATA_HORKAGE_NOLPM },
Kind regards,
Paul
