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 change the old define since it would possibly break
>> more than the fsl driver.
>
>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 impossible to use both
>> libata.h and ata.h.
>
>Why need use both them?
>I believe the libata.h is enough.
Since my driver for the sil3114 uses "legacy mode" it uses a lot of the
ata commands directly in PIO mode. These are defined in ata.h (Both in
u-boot and Linux)
>If the libata.h is not enough for you, I suggest you update it from the
>latest linux kernel.
Still, the kernel has both a ata.h and a libata.h, where libata.h
includes ata.h. And where ATA_SECT_SIZE, and the other defines i use,
actually is defined in ata.h albeit as 512 bytes :).
>I think it is correct way to handle it.
>It will be more easy to to maintain the header.
I have no problem with either solution. If its ok to add the defines to
libata.h instead i will do that?
/Tor
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services for
just about anything Open Source.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace
_______________________________________________
U-Boot-Users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/u-boot-users
