On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 06:19, Alan Cox wrote:
> ** I strongly recommend saying N to IDE TCQ options otherwise this
> should hopefully build and run happily.
>
Ok, so I did some "head-banging-against-the-wall" digging into the IDE
code(my wall is dented now...) and I found where hwif->mate gets
populated. Checking out this code and the code of the calling function,
I found that since the Primary interface is disabled, the first call to
the ide_hwif_configure is for the secondary channel. Being the first
call to the function the mate argument to the ide_hwif_configure
function is null. Since the mate argument is null this makes the
secondary interface have no mate, and it needs one(don't we all). I
figured it might be alright to populate it's hwif->mate var with a copy
of itself. I thought about this and if that var gets called elsewhere
in the code, worst it would do is attempt to double initialize something
on that interface, I think. So it seems like a few lines right by the
assignment of hwif->mate might take care of this. I basically check
mate for null, AND port for not zero. If those 2 conditions are met, I
set hwif->mate to a copy of hwif itself and let it go. It looks like
this runs ok on my boxen. I am just wondering everyone's opinion on
this proposed fix.
Jason Williams
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 31 2002 - 22:00:27 EST