[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45A24159.7060001@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 08:04:25 -0500
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...ox.com>
To: Alan <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
CC: akpm@...l.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sata_via: PATA support, resubmit
Alan wrote:
> This is a clean version of the PATA support for the sata_via hardware.
> I'm resubmitting it since nothing has happened since the last submission
> despite promises of libata core changes. Given users actually need to use
> this stuff today and the code is clean it should get merged irrespective
> of any longer term plans for per channel operations structs and the like.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alan Cox <alan@...hat.com>
Re-explanation since you missed it the first time:
Per-channel operations structs work /today/.
The problem you need to fix or work around is ata_probe_ent, which
doesn't properly fill in ata_port info for this situation. Tejun has
posted patches that kill ata_probe_ent, which you were pointed to.
Mikael Pettersson just posted a sata_promise example that uses
->port_start to work around this problem, setting the cable type and
ata_port::ops properly at runtime, based on SATA or PATA. See "[RFC]
sata_promise: handle TX2plus PATA locally", I believe you were CC'd on
my response.
So, working code for both the short term workaround and long term fix
exist /today/.
If you get the setup right, you don't bloat each hook with "is this port
PATA?" tests. At present, your sata_via patch introduces these needless
tests.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists