[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/6] ahci: move PIO Setup FIS before transfer, f
From: |
Paolo Bonzini |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/6] ahci: move PIO Setup FIS before transfer, fix it for ATAPI commands |
Date: |
Mon, 4 Jun 2018 17:50:43 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0 |
On 02/06/2018 03:22, John Snow wrote:
> - Status: Should be the status register after receiving the H2D Register
> update FIS, but prior to the data transfer, I think. "New value of the
> Status register of the Command Block for initiation of host data
> transfer."
> I think this is being set correctly after this patch.
>
> - Error: "Contains the new value of the Error register of the Command
> Block at the conclusion of all subsequent Data to Device frames."
>
> This is why we were sending out post-hoc PIO Setup FIS frames before,
> how would I know what the error register *will* be...? What?
You don't, I guess. Zero?
> - LBA: Presumably unimportant for the purposes of receiving a command
> PACKET, as we won't be writing it to disk, but a buffer. The values
> can be reported dutifully.
>
> - Device: Just report the register value dutifully.
>
> - Count: Likely just relays 0, as the H2D REG FIS should have updated
> that to zero as part of the PACKET command, as per ATA8 ACS3 7.21.3.
> In any case, just report the register value dutifully.
>
> - E_Status: "Contains the new value of the Status register of the
> Command Block at the conclusion of the subsequent Data FIS."
>
> Again, how would I know...?
>
> - Transfer Count: Should be 12, as per what we specified in 0xA1
> IDENTIFY PACKET DEVICE, see core.c line 234. Your patch gets this
> correct, as we'll actually report the PIO FIS for the packet itself.
>
>
> What this patch does do, though, is change the context of the Status,
> Error and E_Status registers to something different. Everything else
> should be the same, but I'd feel better about taking this patch if I
> understood what exactly this FIS packet was supposed to convey, but I don't.
At least Status and Transfer Count are correct after this patch. :/
Paolo