ahci: restore pci_intx() handling
PATCH 1/1 ahci: restore pci_intx() handling
Commit a5bfc4714b3f01365aef89a92673f2ceb1ccf246 dropped explicit pci_intx() manipulation from ahci because it seemed unnecessary and ahci doesn't seem to be the right place to be tweaking it if it were. This was largely okay but there are exceptions. There was one on an embedded platform which was fixed via firmware and now bko#14124 reports it on a HP DL320.
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14124
I still think this isn't something libata drivers should be caring about (the only ones which are calling pci_intx() explicitly are libata ones and one other driver) but for now reverting the change seems to be the right thing to do.
--- drivers/ata/ahci.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
drivers/ata/ahci.c +2 -2
@@ -2930,8 +2930,8 @@ static int ahci_init_one(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct pci_device_id *ent)if (ahci_sb600_32bit_only (pdev)) hpriv->flags |=AHCI_HFLAG_32BIT_ONLY ; -if (!(hpriv->flags &AHCI_HFLAG_NO_MSI )) -pci_enable_msi (pdev); +if ((hpriv->flags &AHCI_HFLAG_NO_MSI ) ||pci_enable_msi (pdev)) +pci_intx (pdev,1 );/* save initial config */ ahci_save_initial_config (pdev, hpriv);
Quoted 9 lines · Tejun Heo
Commit
a5bfc4714b3f01365aef89a92673f2ceb1ccf246dropped explicitpci_intx()manipulation from ahci because it seemed unnecessary and ahci doesn't seem to be the right place to be tweaking it if it were. This was largely okay but there are exceptions. There was one on an embedded platform which was fixed via firmware and now bko#14124 reports it on a HP DL320.
Quoted 7 lines
I still think this isn't something libata drivers should be caring about (the only ones which are calling
pci_intx()explicitly are libata ones and one other driver) but for now reverting the change seems to be the right thing to do.Signed-off-by Tejun Heo <[email protected]>Reported-by Thomas Jarosch <[email protected]>
In the future, for stuff that you want sent to stable, can you also add:
Cc: stable <[email protected]>
in this signed-off-by area? That way, when the patch hits Linus's tree, we get automatically notified of it and I don't have to dig back through log files to try to find out if your commit has made it in or not.
thanks,
greg "drowning in -stable patches" k-h
Quoted 5 lines · Greg KH
In the future, for stuff that you want sent to stable, can you also add:
Cc: stable <[email protected]>
in this signed-off-by area? That way, when the patch hits Linus's tree, we get automatically notified of it and I don't have to dig back through log files to try to find out if your commit has made it in or not.
Ah... new protocol. Will do.
Thanks.
Signature · 1 line
tejun
Jeff Garzik
AppliedQuoted 14 lines · Tejun Heo
Commit
a5bfc4714b3f01365aef89a92673f2ceb1ccf246dropped explicitpci_intx()manipulation from ahci because it seemed unnecessary and ahci doesn't seem to be the right place to be tweaking it if it were. This was largely okay but there are exceptions. There was one on an embedded platform which was fixed via firmware and now bko#14124 reports it on a HP DL320.http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14124I still think this isn't something libata drivers should be caring about (the only ones which are calling
pci_intx()explicitly are libata ones and one other driver) but for now reverting the change seems to be the right thing to do.
Quoted 5 lines
Signed-off-by Tejun Heo<[email protected]>Reported-by Thomas Jarosch<[email protected]>--- drivers/ata/ahci.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
applied