On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 23:58 +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009, David Miller wrote:
...
Can you explain why the esp_slave_configure() part of your patch is
necessary?
Index: linux-2.6.31/drivers/scsi/esp_scsi.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.31.orig/drivers/scsi/esp_scsi.c 2009-11-23 12:52:45.000000000 +1100
+++ linux-2.6.31/drivers/scsi/esp_scsi.c 2009-11-23 12:53:30.000000000 +1100
@@ -2405,12 +2405,6 @@ static int esp_slave_configure(struct sc
struct esp_target_data *tp = &esp->target[dev->id];
int goal_tags, queue_depth;
- if (esp->flags & ESP_FLAG_DISABLE_SYNC) {
- /* Bypass async domain validation */
- dev->ppr = 0;
- dev->sdtr = 0;
- }
-
goal_tags = 0;
if (dev->tagged_supported) {
@@ -2433,6 +2427,11 @@ static int esp_slave_configure(struct sc
}
tp->flags |= ESP_TGT_DISCONNECT;
+ if (esp->flags & ESP_FLAG_DISABLE_SYNC) {
+ dev->wdtr = spi_support_wide(dev->sdev_target) = 0;
+ dev->sdtr = spi_support_sync(dev->sdev_target) = 0;
+ }
+
if (!spi_initial_dv(dev->sdev_target))
spi_dv_device(dev);
The aim is that domain validation will not test for sync when we know it
can't work (in PIO mode). This is the result:
So this isn't the correct way to handle the problem. You're altering
the disk capability flags to trick the transport class. What you want
to be doing is updating esp_set_period so it won't go under whatever you
deem to be a correct period setting (or if it's really async then it
won't set the period at all).
James
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-m68k" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
