sd_resume redundant? [was: [PATCH] libata: implement ata_wait_after_reset()]

[Indan Zupancic]

On Sat, May 19, 2007 21:04, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Yeah, if SCR registers are accessible, 0xff doesn't indicate the device
>> isn't there, so the whole skip-0xff logic probably shouldn't apply in
>> such cases, but we can also achieve pretty good result by just making
>> the first reset tries a bit more aggressive.
>
> So, here's the patch.
>
> Paul, can you please test this patch without the previous patch?  Indan,
> this should reduce the resume delay.  Please test.  But you'll still
> feel some added delay compared to 2.6.20 due to the mentioned
> suspend/resume change.

This removed the COMRESET errors indeed, and with sd_resume()
disabled everything is speedy again (2s or so. Still a desktop pc).
I didn't try with sd_resume enabled.

Everything seems to work fine without sd_resume(), so why is it needed?

Greetings,

Indan


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/