On Fri, May 09 2003, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
>
> On Fri, 9 May 2003, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
> > On Fri, May 09 2003, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 08 2003, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > > On Iau, 2003-05-08 at 17:34, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > > > Might not be a bad idea, drive->address_mode is a heck of a lot more to
> > > > > the point. I'll do a swipe of this tomorrow, if no one beats me to it.
> > > >
> > > > We don't know if in the future drives will support some random mask of modes.
> > > > Would
> > > >
> > > > drive->lba48
> > > > drive->lba96
> > > > drive->..
> > > >
> > > > be safer ?
> > >
> > > I had the same thought yesterday, that just because a device does lba89
> > > does not need it supports all of the lower modes. How about just using
>
> Actually it does for 48-bit.
Sure, that's not the example :-)
Somewhere down the line, lba28 might (is it already?) be deprecated, for
instance.
> > > the drive->address_mode as a supported field of modes?
> > >
> > > if (drive->address_mode & IDE_LBA48)
> > > lba48 = 1;
> >
> > How about something like the attached? Removes ->addressing from both
> > drive and hwif, and adds:
> >
> > drive->addr_mode: capability mask of addressing modes the drive supports
> > hwif->na_addr_mode: negated capability mask
>
> Sounds sane.
Can I commit?
-- Jens Axboe- 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 15 2003 - 22:00:30 EST