|To:||Atsushi Nemoto <email@example.com>|
|Subject:||Re: [PATCH 1/2] ide: Add tx4939ide driver|
|From:||Sergei Shtylyov <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||Fri, 12 Sep 2008 21:19:20 +0400|
|Cc:||email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Organization:||MontaVista Software Inc.|
|References:||<48C851ED.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <48CA8BEE.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|User-agent:||Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803|
Atsushi Nemoto wrote:
+ /* + * If only one of XFERINT and HOST was asserted, mask + * this interrupt and wait for an another one. Note
This comment somewhat contradicts the code which returns 1 if only HOST interupt is asserted if ERR is set.
Which is not its business to test. I think you should remove that above check -- if there's INTRQ asserted, then it's asserted. I wonder if BMIDE interrupt bit gets set in that case (suspecting it's not)...
Well, let me explain a bit. The datasheed say I should wait _both_ XFERINT and HOST interrupt. So, if only one of them was asserted, I mask it and wait another one. But on the error case, only HOST was asserted and XFERINT was never asserted. Then I could not exit from "waiting another one" state, until timeout.
Hmm, I got it: you decide whether it's worth waiting more for XFEREND interrupt based on whether ERR is set or not. I suppose IDE_INT doesn't get set in case the command gets endede with ERR set?
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [PATCH 1/2] ide: Add tx4939ide driver, Sergei Shtylyov|
|Next by Date:||Re: [PATCH] exclude h8300 local symbols (Re: kallsyms exclude local symbols), Yoshinori Sato|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [PATCH 1/2] ide: Add tx4939ide driver, Sergei Shtylyov|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [PATCH 1/2] ide: Add tx4939ide driver, Atsushi Nemoto|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|