lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/18] misc generic ide stuff
    Date

    Hi,

    On Thursday 12 June 2008, Borislav Petkov wrote:
    > Hi Bart,
    >
    > here are some generic ide conversion patches. The first 12 are what i thought
    > you suggested :) concerning prepping the ide-cd code for the generic layer. The
    > remaining 6 are what i've done so far wrt removing ide_atapi_pc from the ide
    > drivers. It is obvious that this is not trivial and I basically tiptoe around the

    Thanks.

    I applied patches #1-2, #5-12 and #14-15.

    I skipped patches #3-4, #13 and #16-18 for now
    (more details in replies to corresponding mails).

    > landmines in the IRQ handler and request issue paths :). This raises also
    > several questions:
    >
    > 1. ide-cd uses the cdrom_info struct for e.g. dma status notification, the other
    > ide drivers use it per packet command in pc->flags. Well the last are kinda too
    > much to carry for _each_ command and i'm thinking maybe put all that in the
    > ide_drive_t and make it generic enough to fit all drivers. This way
    > pc->callback() can also be harboured there. One concern might be when a flag is
    > strictly per packet command which could be put somewhere else (maybe in the
    > struct request since it already has members when it is used as a packet
    > command).

    Some pc->flags describe device's properties and thus should be moved to
    ide_drive_t (->dev_flags) while some other correspond to the queued command
    and moving them to ide_drive_t would be a bad idea IMO.

    For ATA commands I was planning to put taskfile flags into rq->special field
    (well, I actually implemented it in draft patch and it looks OK) so maybe we
    can do something similar for packet commands.

    > 2. Can all that pc->xferred, pc->b_count, pc->errors and pc->cur_pos accounting
    > be safely mapped to a rq? I see some discrepancies like is pc->buf_size ==
    > rq->data_len, what about pc->req_xfer? I'll have a more detailed look at those
    > when i have more spare time later.

    If you ask if they can be mapped 'directly' then the answer is: "probably no"
    but if the question is whether it is possible to do it after some changes then
    the answer is: "probably yes". :)

    [ However it may be necessary to convert ATAPI drivers to use scatterlists
    instead of open-coded ->bio walking for PIO transfers first. ]

    Thanks,
    Bart


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-06-14 19:49    [W:0.021 / U:95.752 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site