[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091126170339.218f6674@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:03:39 +0000
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>
Cc: linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...montavista.com>,
Joao Ramos <joao.ramos@...v.pt>,
H Hartley Sweeten <hsweeten@...ionengravers.com>,
Ryan Mallon <ryan@...ewatersys.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add PATA host controller support for Cirrus Logic's
EP93xx CPUs
> +static void pata_ep93xx_set_piomode(struct ata_port *ap,
> + struct ata_device *adev)
> +{
> + void __iomem *base = ap->host->private_data;
> + struct ata_device *pair = ata_dev_pair(adev);
> + const struct ata_timing *t = ata_timing_find_mode(adev->pio_mode);
> + const struct ata_timing *cmd_t = t;
> + u32 reg = IDECFG_IDEEN | IDECFG_PIO;
> + u8 pio = adev->pio_mode - XFER_PIO_0;
> +
> + if (pair && pair->pio_mode < adev->pio_mode)
> + cmd_t = ata_timing_find_mode(pair->pio_mode);
> +
> + /*
> + * store the adequate PIO mode timings, to be used later
> + * by pata_ep93xx_{read,write}
> + */
> + adev->private_data = (void *)t;
> + ap->private_data = (void *)cmd_t;
> +
> + /* reconfigure IDE controller according to PIO mode (?) */
This would probably be better in both drivers as a simple table. It would
then not be a switch but collapse the entire pile into a single
writel(pio_timing[pio], base + IDECFG);
> +static u16 __pata_ep93xx_read(void __iomem *base, void *addr,
> + struct ata_timing *t)
> +{
> + u32 reg;
> +
> + reg = (unsigned long)addr | IDECTRL_DIORN | IDECTRL_DIOWN;
> + writel(reg, base + IDECTRL);
> + ndelay(t->setup);
This implies a bus with no posting, which seems to the case from the
other driver code.
> + while (!pata_ep93xx_check_iordy(base))
> + cpu_relax();
And if the drive was hot unplugged this is doom incorporated (plus we
might not be using an IORDY mode.
>
> + while (!pata_ep93xx_check_iordy(base))
> + cpu_relax();
Ditto
I don't see anything wrong in the conversion.
The size thing is true - libata tried to abstract at a higher level which
in turn avoids lots of computed branches to one liners and lets the
compiler inline stuff better (eg all the private read/write methods into
a single call free tf_* etc). It could I guess provide an "awkward
case" skeleton tf_* and other sets of functions that were passed inb/outb
ops. One for Jeff to ponder ?
Alan
--
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