[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200812190013.10156.bzolnier@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 00:13:09 +0100
From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...mvista.com>,
Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
Mario Schwalbe <schwalbe@....tu-dresden.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linux IDE mailing list <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ide: Fix ata_id_has_dword_io to return DWORD I/O support properly
On Thursday 18 December 2008, Alan Cox wrote:
> > OTOH the current patch is safe even for 2.6.28 (based on years of experience
> > with the check that we had in IDE subsystem) and will fix some libata drivers
> > (pata_legacy, pata_qdi and pata_winbond) to use dword IO on >= ATA-2 devices.
> >
> > [ In reality this a regression fix for IDE -> libata conversion as it is a
> > huge performance improvement for the above mentioned DMA-less drivers. ]
>
> The 32bit PIO support is already queued up and went to Jeff a while ago
> so thats all in hand - its btw a big win on some suprising chipset cases
> including Intel ICH chipsets.
It is a not exactly the same issue as the pata_{legacy,qdi,winbond} one
discussed above. Anyway cool to see another IDE -> libata regression fixed.
> > Jeff, I would like to merge it through IDE tree since the other patch depends
> > on it but if you want to go ahead and push it to Linus earlier feel free to
> > do it (or I can include it into the next IDE fixes pull request if you like).
>
> Its still broken. You cannot use the version check for versions below 3.
Hmm, this doesn't seem to be a problem w.r.t. to the patch we are discussing
because in such case ata_id_major_version() will just return 0 and the check
will behave in the identical way as it was before the patch.
> I remain unconvinced we should be looking at it anywhere except specific
> pure ISA cycle pass through hardware and thus it belongs as a helper for
> those drivers not as ata_has_mumble stuff as its not ATA - eide_* maybe.
Sure, we can always improve things further later. However Mario's patch
is _definitely_ an improvement over the _current_ code. Don't you agree?
[ There are no alternative patches to consider currently so... ]
Thanks,
Bart
--
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