lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [May]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] 2.5.15 IDE 62
Uz.ytkownik benh@kernel.crashing.org napisa?:
>>Just to clarify it... From the host view it's not the chipset
>>it's a channel we have to deal with. And there are typically two
>>channels on a host. For the serialized parts, we have to
>>possiblities:
>>
>>1. Preserve the current behaviour of using additionally a global
>>lock.
>>
>>2. "Cheat" and reuse the lock from the primary channel during
>>the initialization of the secondary channel.
>>
>>Hmmm.... Thinking a bit about it I'm now conviced that 2. is more
>>elegant then 1. And finally this will
>>just allow us to make the hwgroup_t go entierly away.
>
>
> I would do things differently. From the common point of view,
> what we deal with is
>
> controller
> / \
> channel x, channel y, ....
>
> That is an _arbitrary_ number of channels. So the host driver
> should just register individual "channels" to the IDE layer,
> each one has it's queue lock, period.
>
> Now, if for any reason, the host specific code has to synchronize
> between several of it's channels when dealing with things like
> chipset configuration, it's up to that host driver to know about
> it and deal with it; which make perfect sense to be done with a
> third lock specific to protecting those specific registers that
> are shared and that is completely internal to the host chipset
> driver.
>
> The only case I see where the host may have to additionally go
> and grab the other channel's locks (the queue lock or whatever
> you call it) is if the actual setting change on one channel
> has side effect on a currently transferring other channel.
>
> But that is completely internal to the host, and yes, I agree
> that reusing the other channel's lock is probably the best solution.
>
> But in cases where you just have 2 bitfields in the same register
> that need serialized access from both channels, a simple lock
> protecting only that register seems to be plenty enough.
>
> What did I miss ?

1. The fact that there are some cases where the initialization code
doesn't necessarily go down to the host chip drivers right now.

2. Most of the current code...

BTW> The code will be much cleaner in the upcomming ide 65, since
the allocation of the structures shared between two channels will be
simple pushed down to the corresponding host chip drivers instead of
the "match search" done after the channles have been initialized.

Since most of the host chip drivers are not reentrant anyway we will
be able to save quite a lot of allocation code as well.

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:26    [W:0.151 / U:15.456 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site