> The timings the drive sees clearly are not based upon a 16MHz clock
> period. Therefore, I'd prefer to get the nanoseconds from the
> calculation and work from that.
Makes sense.
> Obviously I can demonstrate a bug. 8)
>
> Lets say that we want to do MW DMA mode 2. This has the minimum timing
> of 70ns active, 25ns recovery, 120ns cycle time.
Well it depends on the drive id data but assuming the defaults yes
> When you quantise those figures using a clock period of 62.5ns (16MHz)
> you end up with: 2 clocks active (2*62.5 > 70), 1 clock recovery
> (1*62.5 > 25) and 2 clocks cycle (2*62.5 > 120).
>
> Last time I checked, active + recovery must always be equal to the cycle
> time, and unless my math is failing me, 2 + 1 does not equal 2.
The libata code does the following:
if (t->active + t->recover < t->cycle) {
t->active += (t->cycle - (t->active + t->recover)) / 2;
t->recover = t->cycle - t->active;
}
which probably means for 16MHz you don't have enough resolution to be sure
you'll error in this direction in all cases. If so you just need to try
adding
if (t->active + t->recover > t->cycle)
t->cycle = t->active + t->recover
to stretch the cycle time to fit the resolution as well.
And we should get this tested/fixed by someone seeing the problem, before
and instead of putting hacks/notes in drivers that may then get lost
Alan
-
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]
