Hello,
Alan Cox wrote:
[--snip--]
I killed hard_port_no by s/ap->hard_port_no/ap->port_no/g without
actually reviewing the usages (man, those are a LOT). If all pata
drivers always relied on ap->hard_port_no representing the actual port
index in the controller, there shouldn't be a problem. But, just in
case, please review the change.
Think about the following execution sequence
ati_pci_init_one
primary port already stolen by drivers/ide
secondary port free
legacy_mode = ATA_PORT_SECONDARY
ata_pci_init_legacy_port
port_num = 0
hard_port_num = 1
*kerunnccchhhhhh*
Ah... You're right. That will make port_no different from the hw port#.
If this fixes Magallon's problem and you agree with the fix, I'll break
it down to two patches and submit'em to you with proper heading and all.
I agree with the theory and the diagnosis. I'm a bit worried about
hard_port_no however and I don't think that bit is safe in the secondary
only corner case. Registering both always and disabling one works for me
as a cleanup.
If you do that then I'll audit all the drivers use of ->port_no against
the patches.
I like 'registering both always and disabling one' approach for
partially stolen legacy devices. We can make ->hard_port_no do the job
as before, but IMHO it's error-prone and only useful for very limited
cases (first legacy port stolen).
Jeff, what do you think?
--
tejun
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
