[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45B93EF2.3030706@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 18:36:18 -0500
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...ox.com>
To: Alan <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
CC: torvalds@...l.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-ide@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libata-sff: Don't call bmdma_stop on non DMA capable
controllers
Alan wrote:
> Fixes bogus accesses to ports 0-15 with a non DMA capable controller.
> This I think should go in for 2.6.20
applied to #upstream-fixes, but it's a hack based on a misunderstanding.
See comments below for further work needed.
> Arguably it shouldn't be called for PIO commands at all but thats a
> matter for Jeff to decide
You are getting misled by the function name.
ata_bmdma_post_internal_cmd() is the common ->post_internal_cmd() hook
for BMDMA-like (SFF-like) controllers. ->post_internal_cmd() hook will
always be called, for all commands, when present.
For PIO-only controllers, simply delete the post_internal_cmd hook from
that specific driver's ata_port_operations. (assuming no other cleanup
is needed)
For other SFF controllers, perhaps ata_bmdma_post_internal_cmd() should
be revised to check the taskfile protocol (PIO, DMA, ...)?
I leave that up to your judgement, to figure out what's best. I
certainly AGREE that an unconditional ata_bmdma_stop() for all commands,
for all taskfile protocols, sounds wrong.
Jeff
-
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