[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070125172739.0c990a9a@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:27:39 +0000
From: Alan <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc: jgarzik@...ox.com, torvalds@...l.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libata-sff: Don't call bmdma_stop on non DMA capable
controllers
> > void ata_bmdma_post_internal_cmd(struct ata_queued_cmd *qc)
> > {
> > - ata_bmdma_stop(qc);
> > + if (qc->ap->ioaddr.bmdma_addr)
> > + ata_bmdma_stop(qc);
> > }
>
> But what if the bmdma_addr _is_ zero? Please, let's not allow the "zero
> is not a valid number" braindamage to spread any further than the IRQ
> setup it's already broken.
The fix matches the rest of libata on this and fixes a bug that wants
fixing urgently for 2.6.20.
If you want to put your bmdma address at zero then libata-sff won't help
you at the moment, and assumes zero is a safe "not in use" value because
the PCI layer also takes a similar view in places.
libata-sff and thus ata_bmdma_post_internal_cmd() aren't used by non PCI
devices so the bmdma test is ok providing it stays within libata-sff. I
don't think its a problem, although clearly its an assumption that the
core code rather than the SFF code cannot make.
drivers/ide uses roughly the same assumptions without problem.
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists