From 0dc36888d4422140f9eaf50f24953ec109f750a3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tejun Heo Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:34:43 -0500 Subject: libata: rename ATA_PROT_ATAPI_* to ATAPI_PROT_* ATA_PROT_ATAPI_* are ugly and naming schemes between ATA_PROT_* and ATA_PROT_ATAPI_* are inconsistent causing confusion. Rename them to ATAPI_PROT_* and make them consistent with ATA counterpart. Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo Signed-off-by: Jeff Garzik --- drivers/ata/libata-eh.c | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) (limited to 'drivers/ata/libata-eh.c') diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-eh.c b/drivers/ata/libata-eh.c index 1bc1acf3bbb..419552603a1 100644 --- a/drivers/ata/libata-eh.c +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-eh.c @@ -1299,10 +1299,10 @@ static unsigned int atapi_eh_request_sense(struct ata_queued_cmd *qc) /* is it pointless to prefer PIO for "safety reasons"? */ if (ap->flags & ATA_FLAG_PIO_DMA) { - tf.protocol = ATA_PROT_ATAPI_DMA; + tf.protocol = ATAPI_PROT_DMA; tf.feature |= ATAPI_PKT_DMA; } else { - tf.protocol = ATA_PROT_ATAPI; + tf.protocol = ATAPI_PROT_PIO; tf.lbam = SCSI_SENSE_BUFFERSIZE; tf.lbah = 0; } @@ -1979,8 +1979,8 @@ static void ata_eh_link_report(struct ata_link *link) [ATA_PROT_PIO] = "pio", [ATA_PROT_DMA] = "dma", [ATA_PROT_NCQ] = "ncq", - [ATA_PROT_ATAPI] = "pio", - [ATA_PROT_ATAPI_DMA] = "dma", + [ATAPI_PROT_PIO] = "pio", + [ATAPI_PROT_DMA] = "dma", }; snprintf(data_buf, sizeof(data_buf), " %s %u %s", -- cgit v1.2.3