Messages in this thread | | | From | "Ted Kaminski" <> | Subject | pnp/IDE question- help fixing up a patch | Date | Wed, 11 Dec 2002 23:01:47 -0600 |
| |
Hello all,
I've got an ide, and an idepnp question... (for 2.4)
I'm working on refining a patch sent previously (http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20021108061020.A14168%40localhost) to be less intrusive. I'll be refering to things done in that patch...
The short of it is, this sb16 pnpide interface apparently cannot use ALTSTATUS at a certain point. (I'm no ide whiz, I'm just simplifying the code that David Meybohm wrote, so maybe I'm off a bit) at any rate, this seems to require a new flag be listed along with the hardware information.
His solution was to add + int no_passive; /* no passive status tests */ to hw_reg_s in ide.h and check that flag in drive_is_ready()
I *think* it's out of place. It seems to me it'd be more appropriate to add + unsigned no_passive : 1; /* no passive status tests */ to hwif_s in ide.h. Right next to a few other bitfields
Which is better? or is there a different, even better spot?
As for the idepnp part, he added a "dev = NULL" into the loop, and was unsure of whether or not this was a good idea. I have the same question. Or perhaps this smells of a seperate patch?
I'd rather ask these question in the form of my own patch, but... I'm a bit short on time, atm. sorry.
Thanks in advace, -Ted
- 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/
| |