In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> >I don't think the ATA_SECT_BYTESIZE is better than
> >the ATA_SECT_SIZE.
Actually it's worse.
> The big problem here is that ata.h defines ATA_SECT_SIZE as 256 Words
> where libata defines it as 512 Bytes.
But "BYTESIZE" reads to me as "size of byt
> >When I grep 'ATA_SECT_SIZE', I can *not* find any files including the
> >ATA_SECT_SIZE before the fsl_sata.c.
>
> Well, the ata_piix driver for one uses it, but only includes ata.h. But
> that is the only one in the tree right now.
>
> >> But the problem still remains, it is currently impossib
On 3/31/2008, "Dave Liu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Don't do this.
>> >
>> >I don't think the ATA_SECT_BYTESIZE is better than
>> >the ATA_SECT_SIZE.
>>
>> The big problem here is that ata.h defines ATA_SECT_SIZE as 256 Words
>> where libata defines it as 512 Bytes.
>>
>> I did not want to
> >Don't do this.
> >
> >I don't think the ATA_SECT_BYTESIZE is better than
> >the ATA_SECT_SIZE.
>
> The big problem here is that ata.h defines ATA_SECT_SIZE as 256 Words
> where libata defines it as 512 Bytes.
>
> I did not want to change the old define since it would possibly break
> more than
On 3/31/2008, "Dave Liu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> - fsl_sata_exec_cmd(sata, cfis, CMD_ATA, 0, buffer,
>> ATA_SECT_SIZE * blkcnt);
>> + fsl_sata_exec_cmd(sata, cfis, CMD_ATA, 0, buffer,
>> ATA_SECT_BYTESIZE * blkcnt);
>> return blkcnt;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -658,7 +659,7 @@ s
> - fsl_sata_exec_cmd(sata, cfis, CMD_ATA, 0, buffer,
> ATA_SECT_SIZE * blkcnt);
> + fsl_sata_exec_cmd(sata, cfis, CMD_ATA, 0, buffer,
> ATA_SECT_BYTESIZE * blkcnt);
> return blkcnt;
> }
>
> @@ -658,7 +659,7 @@ static u32 fsl_sata_rw_cmd_ext(int dev, u32 start,
> u32 blkcnt,
ata.h and libata.h contains duplicate and conflicting definitions. This
patch tries to resolve this and make them both includeable in a sourcefile.
Also updated is the fsl_sata driver which uses libata.h
Signed-off-by: Tor Krill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
drivers/block/fsl_sata.c | 15 ---
