From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030437AbXAHBqQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Jan 2007 20:46:16 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030431AbXAHBqQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Jan 2007 20:46:16 -0500 Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:51497 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030430AbXAHBqP (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Jan 2007 20:46:15 -0500 Message-ID: <45A1A265.20504@garzik.org> Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 20:46:13 -0500 From: Jeff Garzik User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20061219) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mikael Pettersson CC: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH libata #promise-sata-pata] sata_promise: unbreak 20619 References: <200701062031.l06KV64q022234@harpo.it.uu.se> In-Reply-To: <200701062031.l06KV64q022234@harpo.it.uu.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -4.3 (----) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 3.1.7 on srv5.dvmed.net summary: Content analysis details: (-4.3 points, 5.0 required) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Mikael Pettersson wrote: > The PATA support patch for sata_promise appears, from > code inspection, to break the PATA-only 20619 chip. > > The patch removes the SATA flag from the TX2plus SATA+PATA > boards' common flags, with the intention of adding it back > via the _port_flags[] entries for those boards' SATA ports. > > However, it unconditionally marks ports 0 and 1 as SATA > for all boards. This causes the 20619 (TX4000) to announce > its first two PATA ports as SATA | ATA_FLAG_SLAVE_POSS. > > I don't have a TX4000 so I don't know what the actual > consequences of this bug are, but surely this isn't Ok. > > Fixed by moving the port 0 and 1 settings as SATA into > the TX4 and TX2plus specific initialisation code. > > Signed-off-by: Mikael Pettersson Given that I agree with your RFC, this means I can drop all these #promise-sata-pata patches, and kill the #promise-sata-pata branch soon, right? Jeff