On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 11:29:07AM +0100, Holger Macht wrote:
quoted text > > In the above example, even the reset sequence itself can cause hang if
> > the hardware is implemented slightly differently. The reason why
> > set_piomode() locks up but reset sequence doesn't is simple dumb luck.
>
> Another thing, whether it's poor luck or not, it worked like this than at
> least 2.6.22. And it was _heavily_ tested. The above commit broke it
> between 2.6.24-rc1 and 2.6.24-rc2, which is at least a regression.
Not neccessarily. It may just be timing chance on your box.
I agree however we should be doing the reset after the PIO0 switch if it
turns out that the precise order of the two events matters.
Alan
--
unsubscribe notice 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/
Messages in current thread:
Re: [PATCH] libata: Forcing PIO0 mode on reset must not free... , Alan Cox , (Mon Feb 11, 7:32 am)