Dear "Steven A. Falco",
In message 48A5DAFB.10007@harris.com you wrote:
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear "Steven A. Falco",
In message 48A5C296.1060801@harris.com you wrote:
I realized that I should be checking to see if word 163 is applicable to the ATA device in question. To do that, I need to call ata_id_is_cfa() from libata.h. However, libata.h conflicts with ata.h because of duplicate enum values.
Therefore, this respin of the proposed patch deletes the duplicate enums from ata.h and instead includes libata.h to supply the enums. Then, I can call ata_id_is_cfa() and more accurately detect PIO 5 and 6.
I believe cleaning up ata.h is a good thing, because duplicating the enums in both places invites them to get out of sync.
It is, but can you please split this into two independent patches?
Thanks in advance.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
[PATCH 3/3] Typo in spelling of ATAPI.
Correct a small spelling mistake.
Signed-off-by: Steven A. Falco sfalco@harris.com
common/cmd_ide.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/common/cmd_ide.c b/common/cmd_ide.c index 0691007..a744b41 100644 --- a/common/cmd_ide.c +++ b/common/cmd_ide.c @@ -1822,7 +1822,7 @@ unsigned char atapi_issue(int device,unsigned char* ccb,int ccblen, unsigned cha c = atapi_wait_mask(device,ATAPI_TIME_OUT,mask,res);
if ((c & mask) != res) { /* DRQ must be 1, BSY 0 */
printf ("ATTAPI_ISSUE: Error (no IRQ) before sending ccb dev %d status0x%02x\n",device,c);
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
printf ("ATAPI_ISSUE: Error (no IRQ) before sending ccb dev %d status0x%02x\n",device,c);
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
err=0xFF;
This patch is line-wrapped. Please fix your mailer.
[Applied manually]
And *please* stick to the rules and put any comments that are not supposed to become part of the commit message *below* the "---" line.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk