Re: [2.6 patch] select ATA_SFF

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Sergei Shtylyov
Date: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 - 6:10 am

Hello.

Adrian Bunk wrote:




[...]


    ADMA is not SFF-8038i compilant, it's the IDE DMA spec of its own. And I'm 
seeing references to libata-sff.c... confusing.


    I'm seeing no DMA support here... yet there are calls to


    PIO only chip... yet its driver seems to call libata-sff.c...


    These chips are PIO only. Yet the driver calls libata-sff.c, hm...


    I don't think this 'select' is needed, since it's not on option that 
enables the driver itself, just DMA support in it.


    PnP IDE is not SFF-8038i compliant, and not DMA capable, IIUC.


    PIO only driver, no SFF-8038i stuff... but calls libata-sff.c, hm...


    DMA is not SFF-8038i compliant -- however it calls libata-sff.c...


    PIO only, no SFF-8038i compliant registers. Yet it calls liabat-sff.c...


    BMDMA here is not SFF-8038i compatible. Uses libata-sff.c though, it seems...


    PIO only driver, no SFF-8038i compatible registers. Seems to be calling 
libata-sff.c though...


    PIO only driver, not SFF-8038i compliant. Seems to be calling libata-sff.c...


    PCMCIA driver is PIO only, not SFF-8038i "by definition" since it's not 
PCI. Yet seems to call libab-sff.c...


    QDI6580 is VLB PIO only driver -- therefore not SFF-8038i compliant.


    RZ1000 is PIO only, IIRC -- no SFF-8038i registers.


    This is VLB PIO only driver -- no SFF-8038i. Seems to call libata-sff.c 
though...


    ICS is not SFF-8038i compliant. However it calls libata-sff.c... go figure.


    SCC PATA is not SFF-8038i compliant. Seem to calls libata-sff.c however...


    Looks like there's no clean separation within libata-sff.c itself between 
SFF-8038i (BMDMA spec) and IDE registers itself -- that confused me: at first 
I thought there's a big issue with a patch. :-/

    Jeff, Tejun, what "sff" in the file name actually means? Isn't it strange 
that the drivers lacking DMA support or not really compliant with SFF-8038i 
have to link with this file?

MBR, Sergei
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[2.6 patch] select ATA_SFF, Adrian Bunk, (Mon Apr 21, 2:31 pm)
Re: [2.6 patch] select ATA_SFF, Jens Axboe, (Tue Apr 22, 4:39 am)
Re: [2.6 patch] select ATA_SFF, Sergei Shtylyov, (Tue Apr 22, 6:10 am)
Re: [2.6 patch] select ATA_SFF, Tejun Heo, (Tue Apr 22, 6:24 am)
Re: [2.6 patch] select ATA_SFF, Sergei Shtylyov, (Tue Apr 22, 6:36 am)
Re: [2.6 patch] select ATA_SFF, Tejun Heo, (Tue Apr 22, 6:41 am)
Re: [2.6 patch] select ATA_SFF, Mark Lord, (Tue Apr 22, 7:35 am)
Re: [2.6 patch] select ATA_SFF, Tejun Heo, (Tue Apr 22, 7:38 am)
Re: [2.6 patch] select ATA_SFF, Sergei Shtylyov, (Tue Apr 22, 7:43 am)
Re: [2.6 patch] select ATA_SFF, Mark Lord, (Tue Apr 22, 7:44 am)
Re: [2.6 patch] select ATA_SFF, Mark Lord, (Tue Apr 22, 7:51 am)
Re: [2.6 patch] select ATA_SFF, Tejun Heo, (Tue Apr 22, 8:00 am)
Re: [2.6 patch] select ATA_SFF, Sergei Shtylyov, (Tue Apr 22, 8:04 am)
Re: [2.6 patch] select ATA_SFF, Sergei Shtylyov, (Tue Apr 22, 11:54 am)
Re: [2.6 patch] select ATA_SFF, Tejun Heo, (Tue Apr 22, 7:16 pm)
Re: [2.6 patch] select ATA_SFF, Jeff Garzik, (Tue Apr 22, 9:21 pm)
Re: [2.6 patch] select ATA_SFF, Sergei Shtylyov, (Wed Apr 23, 4:16 am)
Re: [2.6 patch] select ATA_SFF, Mark Lord, (Wed Apr 23, 6:30 am)
Re: [2.6 patch] select ATA_SFF, Alan Cox, (Thu Apr 24, 4:35 am)
Re: [2.6 patch] select ATA_SFF, Sergei Shtylyov, (Thu Apr 24, 5:45 am)
Re: [2.6 patch] select ATA_SFF, Mark Lord, (Thu Apr 24, 5:50 am)
Re: [2.6 patch] select ATA_SFF, Sergei Shtylyov, (Thu Apr 24, 6:00 am)
Re: [2.6 patch] select ATA_SFF, Alan Cox, (Thu Apr 24, 7:27 am)
Re: [2.6 patch] select ATA_SFF, Alan Cox, (Thu Apr 24, 8:15 am)
Re: [2.6 patch] select ATA_SFF, Sergei Shtylyov, (Thu Apr 24, 8:30 am)