Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 9 May 2003 13:07:09 +0200 (MET DST) | From | Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH][RFC] Sanitize hwif/drive addressing (was Re: [PATCH] 2.5 ide 48-bit usage) |
| |
On Fri, 9 May 2003, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Fri, May 09 2003, Jens Axboe wrote: > > On Thu, May 08 2003, Alan Cox wrote: > > > On Iau, 2003-05-08 at 17:34, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > > Might not be a bad idea, drive->address_mode is a heck of a lot more to > > > > the point. I'll do a swipe of this tomorrow, if no one beats me to it. > > > > > > We don't know if in the future drives will support some random mask of modes. > > > Would > > > > > > drive->lba48 > > > drive->lba96 > > > drive->.. > > > > > > be safer ? > > > > I had the same thought yesterday, that just because a device does lba89 > > does not need it supports all of the lower modes. How about just using
Actually it does for 48-bit.
> > the drive->address_mode as a supported field of modes? > > > > if (drive->address_mode & IDE_LBA48) > > lba48 = 1; > > How about something like the attached? Removes ->addressing from both > drive and hwif, and adds: > > drive->addr_mode: capability mask of addressing modes the drive supports > hwif->na_addr_mode: negated capability mask
Sounds sane. -- Bartlomiej
> Patch isn't tested, so this is just a RFC. If we agree on the concept, I > can finalize it.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |