[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4764.81.207.0.53.1179613997.squirrel@secure.samage.net>
Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 00:33:17 +0200 (CEST)
From: "Indan Zupancic" <indan@....nu>
To: "Tejun Heo" <htejun@...il.com>
Cc: "Paul Mundt" <lethal@...ux-sh.org>, jeff@...zik.org,
linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
garyhade@...ibm.com
Subject: sd_resume redundant? [was: [PATCH] libata: implement
ata_wait_after_reset()]
On Sat, May 19, 2007 21:04, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Yeah, if SCR registers are accessible, 0xff doesn't indicate the device
>> isn't there, so the whole skip-0xff logic probably shouldn't apply in
>> such cases, but we can also achieve pretty good result by just making
>> the first reset tries a bit more aggressive.
>
> So, here's the patch.
>
> Paul, can you please test this patch without the previous patch? Indan,
> this should reduce the resume delay. Please test. But you'll still
> feel some added delay compared to 2.6.20 due to the mentioned
> suspend/resume change.
This removed the COMRESET errors indeed, and with sd_resume()
disabled everything is speedy again (2s or so. Still a desktop pc).
I didn't try with sd_resume enabled.
Everything seems to work fine without sd_resume(), so why is it needed?
Greetings,
Indan
-
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