Hello.
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
Index: b/drivers/ide/pci/cmd64x.c
===================================================================
--- a/drivers/ide/pci/cmd64x.c
+++ b/drivers/ide/pci/cmd64x.c
@@ -695,9 +695,10 @@ static void __devinit init_hwif_cmd64x(i
hwif->swdma_mask = 0x07;
if (dev->device == PCI_DEVICE_ID_CMD_643)
- hwif->ultra_mask = 0x80;
+ hwif->ultra_mask = 0x00;
if (dev->device == PCI_DEVICE_ID_CMD_646)
- hwif->ultra_mask = (class_rev > 0x04) ? 0x07 : 0x80;
+ hwif->ultra_mask =
+ (class_rev == 0x05 || class_rev == 0x07) ? 0x07 : 0x00;
if (dev->device == PCI_DEVICE_ID_CMD_648)
hwif->ultra_mask = 0x1f;
Hm, well, this doesn't look consistent with the changes in other drivers.
This driver asks for explicit hwif->cds->ultra_mask initializers, IMO...
You'd only have to check for PCI-646 revisions < 5 then...
reworked
Thanks. :-)
Index: b/drivers/ide/pci/piix.c
===================================================================
--- a/drivers/ide/pci/piix.c
+++ b/drivers/ide/pci/piix.c
default:
if (!hwif->udma_four)
hwif->udma_four = piix_cable_detect(hwif);
This one also certainly asks for explicit hwif->cds->ultra_mask
initializers... Thus almost all of this switch statement could go away...
Alas doing it now would make the nice DECLARE_PIIX_DEV() macro go away
Why? Could add another argument to that macro...
(=> a lot of duplicated code)... could be done in the future...
Yes, of course.
Thanks,
Bart
MBR, Sergei
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
