Re: [PATCH][RFC] Sanitize hwif/drive addressing (was Re: [PATCH]

[Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz]

On Fri, 9 May 2003, Jens Axboe wrote:

> On Fri, May 09 2003, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Thu, May 08 2003, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > On Iau, 2003-05-08 at 17:34, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > > Might not be a bad idea, drive->address_mode is a heck of a lot more to
> > > > the point. I'll do a swipe of this tomorrow, if no one beats me to it.
> > >
> > > We don't know if in the future drives will support some random mask of modes.
> > > Would
> > >
> > > 	drive->lba48
> > > 	drive->lba96
> > > 	drive->..
> > >
> > > be safer ?
> >
> > I had the same thought yesterday, that just because a device does lba89
> > does not need it supports all of the lower modes. How about just using

Actually it does for 48-bit.

> > the drive->address_mode as a supported field of modes?
> >
> > if (drive->address_mode & IDE_LBA48)
> > 	lba48 = 1;
>
> How about something like the attached? Removes ->addressing from both
> drive and hwif, and adds:
>
> drive->addr_mode: capability mask of addressing modes the drive supports
> hwif->na_addr_mode: negated capability mask

Sounds sane.
--
Bartlomiej

> Patch isn't tested, so this is just a RFC. If we agree on the concept, I
> can finalize it.