X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Received: by onstor-exch02.onstor.net 
	id <01C7BFF9.66A52D3F@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>; Fri, 6 Jul 2007 10:13:49 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: please review
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 10:13:48 -0800
Message-ID: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E046A8834@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <20070706110435.27886d67@ripper.onstor.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: please review
Thread-Index: Ace/+B1urcOIwxXhQnyItPqOBlh8rwAAHmjA
References: <20070705175356.5ff0f5df@ripper.onstor.net><BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E046A87CA@onstor-exch02.onstor.net> <20070706110435.27886d67@ripper.onstor.net>
From: "Maxim Kozlovsky" <maxim.kozlovsky@onstor.com>
To: "Andy Sharp" <andy.sharp@onstor.com>



>-----Original Message-----
>From: Andy Sharp
>Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 11:05 AM
>To: Maxim Kozlovsky
>Subject: Re: please review
>
>On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 10:20:11 -0700 "Maxim Kozlovsky"
><maxim.kozlovsky@onstor.com> wrote:
>
>> Irq.c:
>>
>> 97: Is marvell really using both interrupt lines? Can you even
connect
>> it like this? There must be a bmfpga interrupt on one of these lines.
>
>Dude, I have no fuggin clue what I'm doing here.  Feel free to educate
>me.  It was just on irq 3 for the longest time, or was it irq 2?  Then
>I was having trouble with the CF irq, so I added it to both because
>some piece of documentation lists it that way.  Didn't seem to make any
>difference whatsoever.  If you know anything, let me in on it.
[MK] The interrupt works the way the code is currently, you don't need
the second interrupt line. You could check if you really are getting the
interrupts on the second line by storing the irq in some variable or
something like that, but I very much doubt that you do. Since this does
not make any difference for you, let's undo this change.

>
>> Reset.c:
>>
>> What's wrong with using include file?
>
>what include file?  you mean for the ds1511_start_whatever prototype?
>there isn't one in the .h for that, and besides, it's just one
>function.  if that's even what you're talking about.
[MK] Can we add the prototype to the include file and include it
properly?=20
>
>> Setup.c:
>>
>> 417: Let's postpone these changes, you have not done the
corresponding
>> FC changes. This is not required currently.
>
>Actually, I've found that I can't get away with not declaring memory.
>It causes the kernel to fuck up in semi-obvious ways.  I could flag it
>as RESERVED so it won't get used, if you're all that worried.
>
>Shit, I just noticed that I'm missing a wired entry in there for the
>other 128MiB.  Doh.  Actually, I should probably make that a wired
>entry and let the kernel do whatever it wants for the first 128M.  Hmm,
>maybe that's a bad idea too.
[MK] OK as long as it is not used.
>
>> Ide-cs.c:
>>
>> 219: I don't get this while (1). It looks like it only terminates in
>> success case.
>
>Hey, I didn't write this shit.  Care to enlighten me?  It looks to me
>like it's looking for a matching card and io window by reading CIS info
>from the card and checking the Vcc, Vpp, Vcw, and other stuff.
>Believe me, I spent several painful days in this code.
>
>If you're asking me how does it get out of the loop if it doesn't find
>a match, look at the CS_CHECK macro.
[MK] OK.
>
