[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D62538C.1010200@ru.mvista.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 14:59:08 +0300
From: Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...sta.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
CC: Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...sta.com>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>,
linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/20] ata_piix: unify code for programming PIO and MWDMA
timings
Hello.
On 21-02-2011 14:58, Alan Cox wrote:
>>>> PIO mode is setup by different code, and it takes care of the IORDY
>>>> setting according to the PIO rules (and it gets called). DMA mode setup should
>>>> just ignore the IORDY setting as in all other sane drivers.
>>> Well it can't ignore it - but if you mean just keep the bit as is then
>> Yes, I mean this.
>>> that sounds sensible, have to see what the docs say happens if you ever
>>> set MWDMA without IORDY.
>> Don't think they say anything on this matter but I can't imagine that
>> IORDY matters for DMA.
... unless the IE bit means something special (and undocumented) for DMA,
if Intel so insists on setting it for every DMA mode.
> Sure - but it does matter for an ATAPI transaction with then has a DMA
> phase because those timings will be used for the command transfer which
> is PIO.
So what? We've already setup PIO timings before the DMA ones. Why force
the IE bit?
> Alan
WBR, 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