linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] hpt366: UltraDMA filter for SATA cards (take 3)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Sat, 01 Sep 2007 00:08:05 +0400
From:	Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...mvista.com>
To:	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] hpt366: UltraDMA filter for SATA cards (take 3)

Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:

>>The Marvell bridge chips used on HighPoint SATA cards do not seem to support
>>the UltraDMA modes 1, 2, and 3 as well as any MWDMA modes, so the driver needs
>>to account for this in the udma_filter() method.  In order to achieve that, do
>>the following changes:

>>- install the method for all chips, not only HPT36x/370 and impove the code
>>  formatting by killing the extra tabs while at it;

>>- add to the end of the 'switch' statement in the method cases for HPT372[AN]
>>  and HPT374 chips upon which the known SATA cards are based;

>>- use hwif->ultra_mask as a default mask for the ide_dma_filter() method to
>>  behave correctly;

>>- move the HPT370[A] cases below the HPT36x case for consistency...

>>Signed-off-by: Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...mvista.com>

>>---
>>Argh!  I've managed to put = instead of &= here and there, so please disregard
>>the take #2... :-/

> Not to mention that there was already take #2 on Aug 19 2007
> (the version of the patch which is currently in IDE quilt tree)...

    I've just changed my mind about which series it'd beliong too -- propply 
need to post [0/n] message before the series....

>>This version doesn't use explicit UltraDMA masks, so converting them to the
>>ATA_UDMA* is left for another, global patch.  This patch against the current

> I have already other patches which are based on the previous version of the
> patch and I don't find the idea of re-doing them especially tempting...

    Too bad. :-)
    I don't find the idea if the open coded masks depnding on HPT3*_ALLOW_ATA* 
for a catch all udma_filter() method especially tempting to. :-)

>>Linus' tree and unfortunately I was able to only compile test it since that
>>tree gives MODPOST warning and dies early on bootup.

>>Index: linux-2.6/drivers/ide/pci/hpt366.c
>>===================================================================
>>--- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/ide/pci/hpt366.c
>>+++ linux-2.6/drivers/ide/pci/hpt366.c
>>@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
>> /*
>>- * linux/drivers/ide/pci/hpt366.c		Version 1.11	Aug 11, 2007
>>+ * linux/drivers/ide/pci/hpt366.c		Version 1.12	Aug 25, 2007
>>  *
>>  * Copyright (C) 1999-2003		Andre Hedrick <andre@...ux-ide.org>
>>  * Portions Copyright (C) 2001	        Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>>@@ -114,6 +114,7 @@
>>  *   unify HPT36x/37x timing setup code and the speedproc handlers by joining
>>  *   the register setting lists into the table indexed by the clock selected
>>  * - set the correct hwif->ultra_mask for each individual chip
>>+ * - add UltraDMA mode filtering for the HPT37[24] based SATA cards
>>  *	Sergei Shtylyov, <sshtylyov@...mvista.com> or <source@...sta.com>
>>  */
>> 
>>@@ -524,36 +525,38 @@ static int check_in_drive_list(ide_drive

> (the real) take #2 also updated hpt3xx_udma_filter() comment

     I've probably dropped that part in anticipation of adding mdma_filter... 
I agree -- future has always come. B-)

>> static u8 hpt3xx_udma_filter(ide_drive_t *drive)
>> {
>>-	struct hpt_info *info	= pci_get_drvdata(HWIF(drive)->pci_dev);
>>-	u8 mask;
>>+	ide_hwif_t *hwif	= HWIF(drive);
>>+	struct hpt_info *info	= pci_get_drvdata(hwif->pci_dev);
>>+	u8 mask 		= hwif->ultra_mask;
>> 
>> 	switch (info->chip_type) {
>>-	case HPT370A:
>>-		if (!HPT370_ALLOW_ATA100_5 ||
>>-		    check_in_drive_list(drive, bad_ata100_5))
>>-			return 0x1f;
>>-		else
>>-			return 0x3f;
>>-	case HPT370:
>>-		if (!HPT370_ALLOW_ATA100_5 ||
>>-		    check_in_drive_list(drive, bad_ata100_5))
>>-			mask = 0x1f;
>>-		else
>>-			mask = 0x3f;
>>-		break;
>> 	case HPT36x:
>>-		if (!HPT366_ALLOW_ATA66_4 ||
>>+		if (HPT366_ALLOW_ATA66_4 &&
>> 		    check_in_drive_list(drive, bad_ata66_4))
>>-			mask = 0x0f;
>>-		else
>>-			mask = 0x1f;
>>+			mask &= ~0x10;
>> 
>>-		if (!HPT366_ALLOW_ATA66_3 ||
>>+		if (HPT366_ALLOW_ATA66_3 &&
>> 		    check_in_drive_list(drive, bad_ata66_3))
>>-			mask = 0x07;
>>+			mask &= ~0x08;
>> 		break;
>>+	case HPT370 :
>>+	case HPT370A:
>>+		if (HPT370_ALLOW_ATA100_5 &&
>>+		    check_in_drive_list(drive, bad_ata100_5))
>>+			mask &= ~0x20;
>>+
>>+		if (info->chip_type == HPT370A)
>>+			return mask;
>>+		break;
>>+	case HPT372 :
>>+	case HPT372A:
>>+	case HPT372N:
>>+	case HPT374 :
>>+		if (ide_dev_is_sata(drive->id))
>>+			mask &= ~0x0e;
>>+		/* Fall thru */
>> 	default:
>>-		return 0x7f;
>>+		return mask;
>> 	}

> I really don't see the advantage of "mask &=" over the previous

    Considered the smaller code? ;-)

> code ("mask = ATA_UDMA*") which was just more readable IMO.

    Like I said, I don't want to be tied by HPT3*_ALLOW_ATA* here and there 
(BTW, this approach was in revision #0 which I've never published :-).

> I'm staying with (the real) take #2 of this patch for now.

    I'll respin RSN... but not take #2, alas. B-)

> Bart

MBR, Sergei
-
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/