[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <465BD751.8000708@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 09:33:37 +0200
From: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
CC: Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, garyhade@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libata: implement ata_wait_after_reset()
Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Tejun Heo wrote:
>> - msleep(150);
>> + /* wait a while before checking status */
>> + ata_wait_after_reset(ap, deadline);
> [...]
>> - msleep(150);
>> + /* wait a while before checking status */
>> + ata_wait_after_reset(ap, deadline);
>>
>> /* Before we perform post reset processing we want to see if
>> * the bus shows 0xFF because the odd clown forgets the D7
>> @@ -3543,8 +3583,8 @@ int sata_std_hardreset(struct ata_port *
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> - /* wait a while before checking status, see SRST for more info */
>> - msleep(150);
>> + /* wait a while before checking status */
>> + ata_wait_after_reset(ap, deadline);
>>
>> rc = ata_wait_ready(ap, deadline);
> [...]
>> - msleep(150);
>> + /* wait a while before checking status */
>> + ata_wait_after_reset(ap, deadline);
>>
>> /* Before we perform post reset processing we want to see if
>> * the bus shows 0xFF because the odd clown forgets the D7
>> Index: work/drivers/ata/sata_inic162x.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- work.orig/drivers/ata/sata_inic162x.c
>> +++ work/drivers/ata/sata_inic162x.c
>> @@ -446,7 +446,7 @@ static int inic_hardreset(struct ata_por
>> struct ata_taskfile tf;
>>
>> /* wait a while before checking status */
>> - msleep(150);
>> + ata_wait_after_reset(ap, deadline);
>>
>> rc = ata_wait_ready(ap, deadline);
> [...]
>
> The main thing that bothers me is not the increase in delay, but the
> fact that this create converts a delay/Status-poll sequence into a
> delay/Status-poll/Status-poll sequence.
>
> ata_wait_after_reset() immediately before ata_wait_ready() seems highly
> redundant. Why not just poll Status once?
I was trying to minimize code disturbance around reset such that
ata_wait_after_reset() can be drop-in replacement for msleep(150). This
was for two reasons 1. as this patch was to fix regression I didn't want
to introduce a lot of change into -rcX and 2. I was lazy. :-)
As dont-consider-0xff-as-port-empty-if-sstatus-available patch fixes the
regression nicely, I think we can delay this to 2.6.23. I'll merge
ata_wait_after_reset() into ata_wait_ready() (or the other way around).
Thanks.
--
tejun
-
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