[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B0EC52B.2070805@ru.mvista.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 21:12:59 +0300
From: Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...mvista.com>
To: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pata_it8213: MWDMA0 is unsupported
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
>>>>>MWDMA0 timings cannot be met with the PIIX based controller
>>>>>programming interface.
>>>
>>>>>This change should be safe as this is how we have been doing
>>>>>things in IDE it8213 host driver for years.
>>>
>>>>>Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>
>>>>>---
>>>>>Verified with the documentation (similar case as with pata_efar).
>>>>Uhhh, no...
>>>>Too many damn drivers.
>>>>Too much damn duplication.
>>>>Too much damn subtle differences here and there.
>>>>The hardware is probably fine for MWMDA0 when it comes to pata_{efar,it8213},
>>>>it just not documented properly in the data sheet.
>>> How so with pata_efar? The active/recovery bitfields are still 2-bit
>>>wide, no?
>>Yes but when TIMEx bit is disabled we are using XFER_PIO_SLOW timings.
600 ns cycle vs spec'ed 480 ns? Is it really worth it?
>>All data sheets including original Intel ones are a complete crap when it
>>comes to explicitly documenting this behavior.
> OTOH all drivers set TIMEx for MWDMA0 currently.. ?
... which would give a grossly overclocked timing.
> --
> Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists