Re: arm-lh7a40x IDE support in 2.6.6
From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
Date: Fri May 14 2004 - 16:23:21 EST
On Friday 14 of May 2004 21:47, Marc Singer wrote:
> > [ you used 'struct ide_hwif_s' in arch-lh7a40x/ide.h to workaround this
> > 8) ]
struct hwif_s actually
> Copied from elsewhere.
EEK, added to TODO
> Listen. It is not my intention to be clever. All I want to do is get
> things working and to not break other people's code. I'm certain that
> most people are working with the same assumptions. Aside from some
> naive snippets I've see promulgated, the bulk of the kernel work I've
> see is sane given limited information. Certainly, once one
> understands a sybsystem completely then the quality rises. I hope
> you'll admit that the IDE code is overly intricate.
With changes like this nobody will ever be able to understand
IDE subsystem completely. ;-)
> > - you are setting IDE_NO_IRQ in ide_init_hwif_ports() which is used
> > in many places in generic IDE code - anybody wanting to understand
> > interactions with your code + generic code will have serious
> > problems (especially if knows _nothing_ about lpd7a40x)
> I don't know what you mean. I grep for that constant and found it
> nowhere except for ide-io.c and in my code. It doesn't take much to
> find the references.
I'm talking about ide_init_hwif_ports() function.
> What is it that you want changed?
> > - hwif->mmio is set to 2 but resource handling is missed
> Can you be more specific? Did you notice the comment? I didn't know
> what it was for, but I set it because I thought that that was the
> right way to go.
> Are you talking about reserving the address space? At the moment,
> this is done in the arch setup. I can certainly move it to the IDE
> > > The OUTB breaks my interface because I don't really have byte-level
> > > access to the resgisters. So, is selectproc a pre-select procedure or
> > > should it be a substitute?
> > pre-select but you can change it to be substitute if you need
> > (just remember to update all users if you decide to do this)
> I'll have to search the kernel to see what uses it. Maybe the better
> way would be to define a new select proc that *is* a substitute.
> > IMO it is better to fix it correctly than to do hacks like this
> > in lpd7a40x_ide_outb() (which is minor performance hit btw)
> Of course.
> > > Anyway, that is what I did in a nutshell. I plan to get back to this
> > > in a week or so. Since Russell King already integrated the lh7a40x
> > > code into the kernel, this stuff should be easy to test.
> > That's what I'm talking about - it shouldn't have been integrated. :-)
> I think we are talking about two things here. I agree that the
> ide-lpd7a400 code should not have been integrated. However, the rest
> of the core code is fine. It is that core code that is necessary to
> make the test possible.
Stuff in arch-lh7a40x/ide.h is really a driver code but
abuses subsystem code instead - that's my complain.
OK, lets move things forward and just fix it.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/