Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 17:52:56 -0400
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>
To: Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@it.uu.se>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, david@dgreaves.com, htejun@gmail.com,
       jean.luc.coulon@gmail.com, jgarzik@pobox.com,
       michal.k.k.piotrowski@gmail.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.22-rc4 - sata_promise regression since -rc3
Message-ID: <20070605215256.GT31565@havoc.gtf.org>
References: <200706052131.l55LVkYN000191@harpo.it.uu.se>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200706052131.l55LVkYN000191@harpo.it.uu.se>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 967
Lines: 29

On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 11:31:46PM +0200, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> I can easily reproduce the problem in 2.6.22-rc4. There are no
> sata_promise changes between rc3 and rc4, but Tejun's libata
> polling SETXFER change was included in rc4. Reverting it makes
> sata_promise work again for me.

Ugh.


> I suspect that sata_promise.c:pdc_interrupt() should detect
> a qc w/ ATA_TFLAG_POLLING, treat the interrupt as spurious,
> and just call ata_chk_status(qc), similar to how sata_inic162x.c,
> sata_nv.c, sata_sil.c, and sata_vsc.c do things.

Yes, highly likely.

SFF-like controllers (and in this case, Promise is included in that
list) with their own interrupt handlers need their own polling handling
code.

	Jeff


-
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/