Code intended to check DMA status was checking DMA command register.
Moreover firmware seems to "forget" to set DMA capable bit for the
slave device (at least in RAID mode but without ITE RAID volumes) so
check device ID for DMA capable bit when deciding whether to use DMA
and remove DMA status c
Code intended to check DMA status was checking DMA command register.
Moreover firmware seems to "forget" to set DMA capable bit for the
slave device (at least in RAID mode but without ITE RAID volumes) so
check device ID for DMA capable bit when deciding whether to use DMA
and remove DMA status c
> Cc: Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Acked-by: Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> - /* Bits 5 and 6 indicate if DMA is active on master/slave */
> - /* It is possible that BMDMA isn't allocated
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
Code intended to check DMA status was checking DMA command register.
Moreover firmware seems to "forget" to set DMA capable bit for the
slave device (at least in RAID mode but without ITE RAID volumes) so
check device ID for DMA capable bit when deciding whether
On Monday 11 June 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > Code intended to check DMA status was checking DMA command register.
> >
> > Moreover firmware seems to "forget" to set DMA capable bit for the
> > slave device (at least in RAID mode but without ITE RAID volumes) so
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
Code intended to check DMA status was checking DMA command register.
Moreover firmware seems to "forget" to set DMA capable bit for the
slave device (at least in RAID mode but without ITE RAID volumes) so
check device ID for DMA capable bit when deciding whether
