Re: [PATCH] libata: always use polling SETXFER

[Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>]

Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Tejun Heo wrote:
>> So, I don't think the problem exists for SATA in the first place.  At
>> least there hasn't been any report of it and doing SETXFER by polling
>> can handle all the existing cases.  We can and probably should deal with
>> such SATA devices when and if they come up.  How are we gonna verify the
>> controller doesn't crap itself and ahci TF register monitoring HSM can
>> work around the weirdo when we don't have any such device?  Even if we
>> determine that we need to do HSM over intelligent SATA controller now, I
>> think we still need to push polling SETXFER first to take care of the
>> existing cases.
> 
> Doing SETXFER by polling only handles the cases where the driver
> actually honors ATA_TFLAG_POLLING, which is /not/ always the case.
> 
> If the new policy ensures that it continues to be OK to /not/ honor
> ATA_TFLAG_POLLING -- thus limiting SETXFER polling assumptions to older
> hardware -- that's fine, and it merely needs to be documented.

Basically this flag applies to drivers which is SFF compliant, at least
at TF interface level.  There also are other flags/callbacks which only
apply to SFF or BMDMA.  It would be nice to separate them out in the
long term and yeah it needs documentation.

> But let us not make the assumption that this bandaid fixes all cases,
> because the bandaid is not applied in all cases.

It covers all the known cases but I agree that SFF specific things
certainly need documentation.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/