From e1cc9de8361f267101402a1181cff4d3d3225a6d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Alan Cox Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:03:07 +0100 Subject: libata-sff: Fix documentation Code moved to ioread/iowrite but the comment didn't Also note a posting issue Signed-off-by: Alan Cox Signed-off-by: Jeff Garzik --- drivers/ata/libata-sff.c | 5 ++++- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-sff.c b/drivers/ata/libata-sff.c index 1cce2198baaf..8023167bbbeb 100644 --- a/drivers/ata/libata-sff.c +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-sff.c @@ -297,7 +297,7 @@ void ata_bmdma_start (struct ata_queued_cmd *qc) dmactl = ioread8(ap->ioaddr.bmdma_addr + ATA_DMA_CMD); iowrite8(dmactl | ATA_DMA_START, ap->ioaddr.bmdma_addr + ATA_DMA_CMD); - /* Strictly, one may wish to issue a readb() here, to + /* Strictly, one may wish to issue an ioread8() here, to * flush the mmio write. However, control also passes * to the hardware at this point, and it will interrupt * us when we are to resume control. So, in effect, @@ -307,6 +307,9 @@ void ata_bmdma_start (struct ata_queued_cmd *qc) * is expected, so I think it is best to not add a readb() * without first all the MMIO ATA cards/mobos. * Or maybe I'm just being paranoid. + * + * FIXME: The posting of this write means I/O starts are + * unneccessarily delayed for MMIO */ } -- cgit v1.2.2