Re: libata git tree, mbox queue status and contents

[Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@ru.mvista.com>]

Alan Cox wrote:

> > * Alan: IORDY handling -- upstream whenever Alan is happy

> I'm happy with it from testing. Just a little worried about it going
> upstream mid -rc as it could have a weird side effect somewhere. I've
> verified an original pre ATA IDE drive with it too now 8)

> > * Alan: ACPI checks for 80wire cable -- upstream whenever Alan is happy

> Happy

> > * Albert: irq_on/off.  Really need to give this some thought.  Not sure 
> > I like where this model is going.  Polling and twiddling irq on/off 
> > should be kept to a minimum, because it's sorta an admission that the 
> > host state machine has broken down, and we need to bandaid.  Its a 
> > bandaid not a root-cause solution.

> I think of it more as an admission that the IDE design is lacking in a
> few areas. No suprise as its an emulation of a 15 year old interface that
> was normally used polled.

   Hehe, note that even host polling has always been racy the way ATA spec. 
described it: there was noting said about the period whithin which the device 
should assert INTRQ after clearing BSY (and the interrupt-pending state wasn't 
clearly specified also), so there's a possibility for the fast host to *not* 
clear interrupt pending by reading the status reg. with BSY=0 but before the 
devie enters interrupt-pending state, and thus possibly stalling the further 
transfer.

MBR, Sergei
-
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/