DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=n6NV3fvsAh8ORaz2R4xyJUMOycTxU2paYgETYgcXuxbfaQ3ILd4M6FxF5hQYFmUaHu
         TslqnkXKArtVVI07gujCaSKUfn52Pm8GDOijBNqEJK5OZiEez4ezBLvZR3SpaYh1B6CL
         HQ50M0wZIlSMqZsXFgoMX01SSMP4V2IG4baCo=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4D514754.30203@ru.mvista.com>
References: <20110208122314.19110.4092.sendpatchset@linux-mhg7.site>
	<20110208122409.19110.4233.sendpatchset@linux-mhg7.site>
	<20110208130701.19709cc6@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
	<AANLkTimAioh_xu0qoQCndSWDAYJ4bpWv01NZn_bZ9g2a@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110208132518.300bb098@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
	<4D514754.30203@ru.mvista.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 10:25:53 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTinE5x=hmQ6Oykw3Tb38HVeL5eHxjdnPOdMt930q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/20] pata_efar: always program master_data before slave_data
From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>
To: Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@mvista.com>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1203
Lines: 36

Hi,

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@mvista.com> wrote:
> Hello.
>
> On 08-02-2011 16:25, Alan Cox wrote:
>
>>>>> We may need to set SITRE before programming slave_data.
>
>>>> Do you have a documentation cite for this or is it random fiddling with
>>>> a
>>>> driver you can't test ?
>
>>> It is good to enable SITRE register before programming it and all
>>> Intel controllers
>
>> That sounds like someone quoting religion. Documentation cite please.
>
> ? SLC90E66 datasheet only says that SIDETIM register has no effect without
> SITRE bit set.

Alan, is this explanation sufficient to ACK this patch?  (Thanks
Sergei for digging it out.)

Jeff, would it be possible to queue patches #01-15 for 2.6.39 if there
are no further concerns with them (thus leaving the merging of
PIIX-like drivers for later)?  They got additional testing on ICH4 and
they look mostly safe & straight-forward compared to #16-21.

Thanks,
Bartlomiej
--
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/