[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 1/2] ide: Add tx4939ide driver

To: Atsushi Nemoto <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ide: Add tx4939ide driver
From: Sergei Shtylyov <>
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 21:08:14 +0400
Cc: Alan Cox <>,,, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <>,
In-reply-to: <>
Organization: MontaVista Software Inc.
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803

Alan Cox wrote:

+#define TX4939IDE_readl(base, reg) \
+       __raw_readl((void __iomem *)((base) + TX4939IDE_REG32(reg)))
+#define TX4939IDE_readw(base, reg) \
+       __raw_readw((void __iomem *)((base) + TX4939IDE_REG16(reg)))
+#define TX4939IDE_readb(base, reg) \
+       __raw_readb((void __iomem *)((base) + TX4939IDE_REG8(reg)))
+#define TX4939IDE_writel(val, base, reg) \
+       __raw_writel(val, (void __iomem *)((base) + TX4939IDE_REG32(reg)))
+#define TX4939IDE_writew(val, base, reg) \
+       __raw_writew(val, (void __iomem *)((base) + TX4939IDE_REG16(reg)))
+#define TX4939IDE_writeb(val, base, reg) \
+       __raw_writeb(val, (void __iomem *)((base) + TX4939IDE_REG8(reg)))

It's generally frowned upon to hide all the detail in macros, it is much
easier to read and understand the code if you don't do this.

+#define TX4939IDE_BASE(hwif)   ((hwif)->io_ports.data_addr & ~0xfff)

Why do you have void __iomem casts all over the write methods not in the
_BASE() method - that would let sparse do its job properly

I don't get why there's need for & at all -- isn't IDE data register address always on 4K boundary?

+       for (i = 0; i < MAX_DRIVES; i++) {
+               if (drive != &hwif->drives[i] &&

You don't actually need the first test.

No, he does need it -- in order not to clamp the new PIO mode based on the previosly selected one. Although, one should call ide_get_paired_drive() ISO this loop.

This also appears wrong. In your
tests MW_DMA_0 is 'faster' than PIO4 but in fact MW_DMA_0 PIO timings are
*slower* than PIO4 so the mode is not in fact slower.

I don't think it's about the DMA timings at all. Though indeed, MWDMA0/1 do (iff it's drive's max) implies slower max PIO mode than PIO4.

+       case XFER_MW_DMA_2:
+       case XFER_MW_DMA_1:
+       case XFER_MW_DMA_0:
+       case XFER_PIO_4:
+               value |= 0x0400;
+               break;

This looks odd according to the speed tables. Can you clarify what is
going on ?

This apparently selects the command PIO timing safest for both drives but does this incorrectly -- the current DMA (or even PIO) mode shouldn't be a part of the equation. There are several examples how to do this including siimage.c and cs5535.c...

MBR, Sergei

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>