Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 12 Dec 2010 16:46:01 +0300 | From | Sergei Shtylyov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] ata: pata_at91.c bugfix for high master clock |
| |
Hello.
On 11-12-2010 22:43, Igor Plyatov wrote:
>>> I do not test this driver, but I think it have the same problem, because >>> it have the same algorithm for timings calculation.
>> I quickly looked thru both drivers and the algorithm seemed different. :-)
> I don't think so...
In fact, the algorithm is slightly different.
>>> If you will see "cycle" value greater then 63, then problem exists.
>> I thought the problem was with active pulse width, not total cycle time...
> The problem was - the same "cycle" variable used to set up NRD_CYCLE > (max value = 127) and NCS_RD_PULSE (max value = 63). > Where NRD_CYCLE, NCS_RD_PULSE names from datasheet for AT91SAM9. > If NCS_RD_PULSE > 63, then overflow occur and pulse is much longer then > required.
Ah, NCS_RD_PULSE is different from active pulse time which is in the variable 'nrd_pulse'.
> For the 132 MHz, driver use NCS_RD_PULSE = 80 at device detection moment > on my board. > Calculated cycle in at91_ide is the same as for pata_at91 driver.
Yes, but NCS_RD_PULSE is different in these drivers, it's cycle_time in at91_ide.c and (cycle time - 2) in the pata_at91.c... Then there should indeed be an error in at91_ide.c as well.
>>> Generally, I does not see any reasons to use at91_ide, because ATA >>> drivers subsystem going to replace IDE drivers.
>> There may be reasons -- like larger thruput in PIO mode (you have to check >> this though -- but generally libata seems very slow in PIO). Anyway, it >> doesn't mean that the bugs in IDE drivers should be ignored, and the >> replacemtn will not happen anytime soon (not all IDE drivers are ported to >> libata yet).
> I will send next patch where this driver corrected and tested.
Thanks. :-)
> Best regards! > -- > Igor Plyatov
WBR, Sergei
| |