in connection with Marvell based SATA->PATA dongles.
The problem was caused by a combination of things working
together to make it hard to spot...
The ATA driver has always started the ATA command, then build
the SG list for DMA and then finally started the DMA engine.
While this is according to specs, it poses a potential
problem as some controllers apparently do not allow for unlimitted
time between starting the ATA command and starting the DMA engine.
At about the same time as ATAng was committed there were lots
of other changes applied, some of which was locking in parts
that causes the busdma load functions to take significantly
longer to load the SG list.
This pushed the time spent between starting the ATA command and
starting the DMA engine over the hill for some controllers
(especially the Silicon Image DS3112a) and caused what looked
like lost interrupts.
The solution is to get all the SG list work or rather all
busdma related stuff done before we even try to start anything.
This has the nice side effect of seperating busdma out the
way it should be, so the working of the ATA machinery is not
cluttered up with busdma droppings, making the code easier
to read and understand.
was that accessing the status reg could occour too fast, confusing
the logic in the flash part. Could not have been located without:
HW donated by: Jonas Bülow <jonas@servicefactory.se>
provide no methods does not make any sense, and is not used by any
driver.
It is a pretty hard to come up with even a theoretical concept of
a device driver which would always fail open and close with ENODEV.
Change the defaults to be nullopen() and nullclose() which simply
does nothing.
Remove explicit initializations to these from the drivers which
already used them.
Fix to the messages output under CAM_DEBUG_CCB: the summary sense
information (error bits and sense key) is in the error field, not
in the result field, of struct ata_request. No other functional change.
This commit puts the relevant code snippets under #ifdef GONE_IN_5
(rather than #ifndef BURN_BRIDGES) thereby disabling the code now.
The code wil be entirely removed before 5.2 unless we find reasons
why this would be a bad idea.
Approach suggested by: imp
