From: Mike Frysinger Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:07:09 -0500 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] SATA: do not auto-initialize during boot In-Reply-To: <49417FAD.4050702@freescale.com> References: <20081211101257.29464834B020@gemini.denx.de> <200812111556.23044.vapier@gentoo.org> <49417FAD.4050702@freescale.com> Message-ID: <200812111607.10866.vapier@gentoo.org> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Thursday 11 December 2008 16:01:33 Scott Wood wrote: > Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Thursday 11 December 2008 15:51:32 Kumar Gala wrote: > >> 'sata init' isn't safe. It seems like you should only be able to call > >> it once. However I think we can keep issuing it and cause bad things > >> to happen. > > > > i dont think so. the SATA driver should be doing the right thing: > > init_sata() should get the hardware into a usable state regardless of how > > it was before. > > So then what's the downside to having any sata access automatically call > init_sata()? i dont care either way. read the earlier part where i said Wolfgang preferred this way. having init_sata() be automatic though would prevent hotplugging ... but maybe people dont care about that ... > >> Also, in the code you removed we do a runtime check on 8536 to see if > >> SATA is even available. That check is still valid. > > > > why ? if the hardware doesnt support it, then the user shouldnt be > > attempting to use it. if they do, that's their fault for doing something > > stupid. > > There's no need to be unnecessarily user-hostile. there's no need to make u-boot unnecessarily safe for the people who dont understand the system -mike -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 835 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20081211/2d1be75c/attachment.pgp