[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1292096611.27634.20.camel@homepc>
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 22:43:31 +0300
From: Igor Plyatov <plyatov@...il.com>
To: Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...sta.com>
Cc: jgarzik@...ox.com, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, geomatsi@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ata: pata_at91.c bugfix for high master clock
Dear Sergei,
> > I do not test this driver, but I think it have the same problem, because
> > it have the same algorithm for timings calculation.
>
> I quickly looked thru both drivers and the algorithm seemed different. :-)
I don't think so...
> > If you will see "cycle" value greater then 63, then problem exists.
>
> I thought the problem was with active pulse width, not total cycle time...
The problem was - the same "cycle" variable used to set up NRD_CYCLE
(max value = 127) and NCS_RD_PULSE (max value = 63).
Where NRD_CYCLE, NCS_RD_PULSE names from datasheet for AT91SAM9.
If NCS_RD_PULSE > 63, then overflow occur and pulse is much longer then
required.
For the 132 MHz, driver use NCS_RD_PULSE = 80 at device detection moment
on my board.
Calculated cycle in at91_ide is the same as for pata_at91 driver.
> > Generally, I does not see any reasons to use at91_ide, because ATA
> > drivers subsystem going to replace IDE drivers.
>
> There may be reasons -- like larger thruput in PIO mode (you have to check
> this though -- but generally libata seems very slow in PIO). Anyway, it
> doesn't mean that the bugs in IDE drivers should be ignored, and the
> replacemtn will not happen anytime soon (not all IDE drivers are ported to
> libata yet).
I will send next patch where this driver corrected and tested.
Best regards!
--
Igor Plyatov
--
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