Re: [PATCH] libata: Correct IORDY handling

Alan Cox wrote: Debugging a report of a problem with an ancient solid state disk showed up some problems in the IORDY handling 1. We check the wrong bit to see if the device has IORDY 2. Even then some ancient creaking piles of crap don't support SETXFER at all. I think this s

Re: [PATCH] libata: Correct IORDY handling

> > > + dev->pio_mode <= XFER_PIO_2) > > Overindented line (to my taste :-). And do we really need to check this? > Yes - if it refuses SET_XFER_MODE we really don't want to run any mode above PIO2. No hardware *should* do this but then this is IDE... - To unsubscribe from

Re: [PATCH] libata: Correct IORDY handling

Hello. Alan Cox wrote: Debugging a report of a problem with an ancient solid state disk showed up some problems in the IORDY handling 1. We check the wrong bit to see if the device has IORDY 2. Even then some ancient creaking piles of crap don't support SETXFER at all. I

[PATCH] libata: Correct IORDY handling

Debugging a report of a problem with an ancient solid state disk showed up some problems in the IORDY handling 1. We check the wrong bit to see if the device has IORDY 2. Even then some ancient creaking piles of crap don't support SETXFER at all. I think this should go via -mm f