Alan,
You are partially correct; however, I can show earlier evolutions an
fragments about the locking changes but that should not be needed.
original AC cmd640.c.patch
quickest I could find that pre-dates your changes to cmd640.c
ide.2.4.19-p4.spin.03302002.patch
This will fix about 80% of the mess in 2.5 too but the rest is a goat
screw because it violates the NDA erratiums about the hardware.
Cheers,
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
On 25 Jul 2002, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-07-25 at 11:51, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> > I am sorry Alan, but I fixed all of the locking code in 2.4 a long time
> > ago, and you adopted it somewhere around this patch.
>
> Andre - the PCI probe fixes which this is about is something I wrote.
> The other locking stuff which is unrelated to this discussion is your
> code but thats not Im talking about - OK.
>
> > Again I have to call this patch and fix and take credit and full ownership
> > of removing all the save/cli/sti/restore which littered the driver and
> > were spread like cow patties through a chopper gun.
>
> That patch is wrong by the way because I made a mistake in 2.4. Your PCI
> config locking should be using pci_config lock not io_request. I'll fix
> the 2.4 tree in a bit now I've tidied up the 2.5 version.
>
> > @@ -748,10 +737,8 @@
> > bus_type = "VLB";
> > } else {
> > cmd640_vlb = 0;
> > - /*
> > - * Don't leak I/O cycles on the PCI bus by blindly attempting
> > - * a configuration cycle type that is not supported by the hardware.
> > - */
> > + /* Find out what kind of PCI probing is supported otherwise
> > + Justin Gibbs will sulk.. */
>
>
> Just ask Justin Gibbs. He didn't like my comment 8) Im sure he remembers
> who wrote it 8)
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 30 2002 - 14:00:19 EST