Tejun Heo wrote:
> Yeah, if SCR registers are accessible, 0xff doesn't indicate the device
> isn't there, so the whole skip-0xff logic probably shouldn't apply in
> such cases, but we can also achieve pretty good result by just making
> the first reset tries a bit more aggressive.
So, here's the patch.
Paul, can you please test this patch without the previous patch? Indan,
this should reduce the resume delay. Please test. But you'll still
feel some added delay compared to 2.6.20 due to the mentioned
suspend/resume change.
Thanks.
--
tejun
diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
index d5939e6..27ddc39 100644
--- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
+++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
@@ -3031,7 +3031,7 @@ int ata_wait_ready(struct ata_port *ap,
if (!(status & ATA_BUSY))
return 0;
- if (status == 0xff)
+ if (!ata_port_online(ap) && status == 0xff)
return -ENODEV;
if (time_after(now, deadline))
return -EBUSY;
[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]
