[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070424090713.65657495@the-village.bc.nu>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 09:07:13 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen.c.accardi@...el.com>
Cc: jeff@...zik.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
htejun@...il.com,
Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen.c.accardi@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/7] libata: check for AN support
> + /*
> + * check to see if this ATAPI device supports
> + * Asynchronous Notification
> + */
> + if ((ap->flags & ATA_FLAG_AN) && ata_id_has_AN(id))
> + {
Bracketing police ^^^
> + /* issue SET feature command to turn this on */
> + rc = ata_dev_set_AN(dev);
> + if (rc) {
> + ata_dev_printk(dev, KERN_ERR,
> + "unable to set AN\n");
> + rc = -EINVAL;
> + goto err_out_nosup;
How fatal is this - do we need to ignore the device at this point or
should we just pretend (possibly correctly) that the device itself does
not support notification.
> @@ -299,6 +305,8 @@ struct ata_taskfile {
> #define ata_id_queue_depth(id) (((id)[75] & 0x1f) + 1)
> #define ata_id_removeable(id) ((id)[0] & (1 << 7))
> #define ata_id_has_dword_io(id) ((id)[50] & (1 << 0))
> +#define ata_id_has_AN(id) \
> + ((id[76] && (~id[76])) & ((id)[78] & (1 << 5)))
Might be nice to check ATA version as well to be paranoid but this all
looks ok as its a reserved field since way back when.
-
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