Messages in this thread | | | Subject | RE: [PATCH 03/10] PCI: AMD SATA IDE mode quirk | Date | Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:49:20 +0800 | From | "Cai, Crane" <> |
| |
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 03:47:33PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > +static void __devinit quirk_amd_ide_mode(struct pci_dev *pdev) > > { > > - /* set sb600 sata to ahci mode */ > > - if ((pdev->class >> 8) == PCI_CLASS_STORAGE_IDE) { > > - u8 tmp; > > + /* set sb600/sb700/sb800 sata to ahci mode */ > > + u8 tmp; > > > > + pci_read_config_byte(pdev, PCI_CLASS_DEVICE, &tmp); > > + if (tmp == 0x01) { > > pci_read_config_byte(pdev, 0x40, &tmp); > > This seems like a dis-improvement. Why are we reading a > config byte for something we already have in the pci_dev? > Why are we now checking against 0x01 instead of a symbolic > constant? Why are we no longer checking that this is > PCI_BASE_CLASS_STORAGE? It is a quirk. In pci_ids.h did have PCI_CLASS_STORAGE_IDE and PCI_BASE_CLASS_STORAGE, these can not represent the right situation we want to check. 0x01 represents PCI_CLASS_STORAGE_IDE last 2 bit. Also because it is a quirk, I do not think we need to change pci_ids.h. So 0x01 used. > > -DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_HEADER(PCI_VENDOR_ID_ATI, > > PCI_DEVICE_ID_ATI_IXP600_SATA, quirk_sb600_sata); > > -DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_HEADER(PCI_VENDOR_ID_ATI, > > PCI_DEVICE_ID_ATI_IXP700_SATA, quirk_sb600_sata); > > +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_HEADER(PCI_VENDOR_ID_ATI, > > +PCI_DEVICE_ID_ATI_IXP600_SATA, quirk_amd_ide_mode); > > +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_RESUME(PCI_VENDOR_ID_ATI, > > +PCI_DEVICE_ID_ATI_IXP600_SATA, quirk_amd_ide_mode); > > +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_HEADER(PCI_VENDOR_ID_ATI, > > +PCI_DEVICE_ID_ATI_IXP700_SATA, quirk_amd_ide_mode); > > +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_RESUME(PCI_VENDOR_ID_ATI, > > +PCI_DEVICE_ID_ATI_IXP700_SATA, quirk_amd_ide_mode); > > Nothing in the changelog entry suggests why we now need > FIXUP_RESUME entries when we didn't before. > PCI configuration space will be changed by BIOS and then in pci init and restore. So resume also needed. > -- > Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still > mine "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in > selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We > can't possibly take such a retrograde step." > >
| |