[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46703A2D.6000207@rtr.ca>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 14:40:45 -0400
From: Mark Lord <liml@....ca>
To: albertl@...l.com
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
IDE/ATA development list <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: libata passthru: support PIO multi commands
Albert Lee wrote:
> ..
> It looks like the ATA passthru commands contain more information than
> what libata needs to execute a command.
>
> e.g. protocol number:
> libata could possibly infer the protocol from the command opcode.
>
> e.g. multi_count:
> libata caches dev->multi_count. Passing multi_count along with
> each passthru command looks useless for libata.
>
> e.g. t_dir:
> libata could possible infer the direction from the command opcode
> or from the protocol number (e.g. 4: PIO_IN / 5: PIO_OUT).
I wonder if the *intent* of the specification was that the low-level driver
should perform whatever setup is necessary to issue the command as given.
So if the command specifies a multcount of 8, then the LLD should issue the
appropriate initialization commands to use a multcount of 8, and then issue
the given R/W MULT command, and then perhaps reset the multcount back to
what it was normally (beforehand) ?
Ditto for the others.
I am *not* proposing that we actually do it this way,
but rather just suggesting a possible rationale.
What does the SAT spec say? Any further hints as to the intent?
Cheers
-
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