On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 21:03:10 -0400 Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ata_irq_ack is part of the SFF layer so its fine that it assumes SFF but > > its wrong that it is used unconditionally and it shouldn't be used this > > way. It just needs a (!ap->ioaddr.bmdma_addr) test adding (assuming thats > > valid for iomap) > > No. It does not need such a test, as it requires BMDMA, not just an > SFF-style Status register. It is up to the driver to decide whether or > not ata_irq_ack() is appropriate for your hardware.
Then no SFF hardware can use ata_irq_ack. Not one card: Because in every case it is permissible that BAR4 is not allocated and the device is running non-DMA, or that the SFF hardware does not support DMA. > pata_icside needs its own ata_irq_ack -- which may just be as simple as > reading the Status register to clear the interrupt condition. > > If others need this as well, ata_sff_irq_ack() would be a good generic > function to create. We should just rename ata_irq_ack(). It is in libata-sff, so it's either wrong (missing a test), or in the wrong file completely. Alan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
