lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Oct]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] libata: fix for transport xfer attributes
Date
Jeff Garzik wrote:

> On 10/13/2011 04:03 PM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz<bzolnier@gmail.com>
> > Subject: [PATCH] libata: fix for transport xfer attributes
> >
> > Fix display of pio_mode, dma_mode and xfer_mode device attributes.
> >
> > before:
> > $ cat /sys/class/ata_device/dev1.0/xfer_mode
> > XFER_UDMA_7, XFER_UDMA_6, XFER_UDMA_5, XFER_UDMA_4, XFER_UDMA_3, XFER_UDMA_2, XF
> > ER_UDMA_1, XFER_UDMA_0, XFER_MW_DMA_4, XFER_MW_DMA_3, XFER_MW_DMA_2, XFER_SW_DMA
> > _2, XFER_PIO_6, XFER_PIO_5, XFER_PIO_4, XFER_PIO_3, XFER_PIO_2
> >
> > after:
> > $ cat /sys/class/ata_device/dev1.0/xfer_mode
> > XFER_UDMA_6
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz<bzolnier@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-ata | 4 ++--
> > drivers/ata/libata-transport.c | 2 +-
> > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > Index: b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-ata
> > ===================================================================
> > --- a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-ata
> > +++ b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-ata
> > @@ -59,12 +59,12 @@ class
> >
> > dma_mode
> >
> > - Transfer modes supported by the device when in DMA mode.
> > + Transfer mode currently used by the device when in DMA mode.
> > Mostly used by PATA device.
> >
> > pio_mode
> >
> > - Transfer modes supported by the device when in PIO mode.
> > + Transfer mode currently used by the device when in PIO mode.
> > Mostly used by PATA device.
> >
> > xfer_mode
> > Index: b/drivers/ata/libata-transport.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- a/drivers/ata/libata-transport.c
> > +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-transport.c
> > @@ -194,7 +194,7 @@ static struct {
> > { XFER_PIO_0, "XFER_PIO_0" },
> > { XFER_PIO_SLOW, "XFER_PIO_SLOW" }
> > };
> > -ata_bitfield_name_match(xfer,ata_xfer_names)
> > +ata_bitfield_name_search(xfer, ata_xfer_names)
>
> "fix" or not it is an ABI change... who is impacted? Has anyone used
> the current, pre-patch behavior as documented?

I doubt that anyone has used it given the current incorrect behavior but lets
ask libata transport authors..


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-10-14 12:01    [W:0.069 / U:0.156 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site