Tejun Heo wrote:
- msleep(150);
+ /* wait a while before checking status */
+ ata_wait_after_reset(ap, deadline);
[...]
- msleep(150);
+ /* wait a while before checking status */
+ ata_wait_after_reset(ap, deadline);
/* Before we perform post reset processing we want to see if
* the bus shows 0xFF because the odd clown forgets the D7
@@ -3543,8 +3583,8 @@ int sata_std_hardreset(struct ata_port *
return 0;
}
- /* wait a while before checking status, see SRST for more info */
- msleep(150);
+ /* wait a while before checking status */
+ ata_wait_after_reset(ap, deadline);
rc = ata_wait_ready(ap, deadline);
[...]
- msleep(150);
+ /* wait a while before checking status */
+ ata_wait_after_reset(ap, deadline);
/* Before we perform post reset processing we want to see if
* the bus shows 0xFF because the odd clown forgets the D7
Index: work/drivers/ata/sata_inic162x.c
===================================================================
--- work.orig/drivers/ata/sata_inic162x.c
+++ work/drivers/ata/sata_inic162x.c
@@ -446,7 +446,7 @@ static int inic_hardreset(struct ata_por
struct ata_taskfile tf;
/* wait a while before checking status */
- msleep(150);
+ ata_wait_after_reset(ap, deadline);
rc = ata_wait_ready(ap, deadline);
[...]
The main thing that bothers me is not the increase in delay, but the
fact that this create converts a delay/Status-poll sequence into a
delay/Status-poll/Status-poll sequence.
ata_wait_after_reset() immediately before ata_wait_ready() seems highly
redundant. Why not just poll Status once?
Jeff
-
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/
