On Thu, 2011-12-29 at 14:18 +0800, Jack Wang wrote:

quoted

@@ -267,39 +267,84 @@ static bool sas_ata_qc_fill_rtf(struct

ata_queued_cmd

quoted

*qc)
 	return true;
 }

-static int sas_ata_hard_reset(struct ata_link *link, unsigned int *class,
-			       unsigned long deadline)
+static struct sas_internal *dev_to_sas_internal(struct domain_device

*dev)

quoted

+{
+	return to_sas_internal(dev->port->ha->core.shost->transportt);
+}
+
+static int smp_ata_check_ready(struct ata_link *link)
 {
+	int res;
+	u8 addr[8];
 	struct ata_port *ap = link->ap;
 	struct domain_device *dev = ap->private_data;
-	struct sas_internal *i
-		to_sas_internal(dev->port->ha->core.shost->transportt);
-	int res = TMF_RESP_FUNC_FAILED;
-	int ret = 0;
+	struct domain_device *ex_dev = dev->parent;
+	struct sas_phy *phy = sas_find_local_phy(dev);

-	if (i->dft->lldd_I_T_nexus_reset)
-		res = i->dft->lldd_I_T_nexus_reset(dev);
+	res = sas_get_phy_attached_sas_addr(ex_dev, phy->number, addr);
+	/* break the wait early if the expander is unreachable,
+	 * otherwise keep polling
+	 */
+	if (res == -ECOMM)
+		return res;
+	if (res != SMP_RESP_FUNC_ACC || SAS_ADDR(addr) == 0)

[Jack Wang] 
This check may not guarantee the FIS have received by the expander, should
we
 Use sas_ex_phy_discover instead, we still need to teach
sas_ex_phy_discover_helper to return right code.

So the concern seems valid, do we have a fix yet?

James