[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.60.0707252130090.6234@poirot.grange>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 21:37:26 +0200 (CEST)
From: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@....de>
To: Vitaly Bordug <vitb@...nel.crashing.org>
cc: linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] [IDE] Platform IDE driver (was: MMIO IDE driver)
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Vitaly Bordug wrote:
>
> This is now very similar to pata_platform.c, they both use
> same platform data structure and same resources.
>
> To achieve that, byte_lanes_swapping platform data variable
> and platform specified iops removed from that driver. It's fine,
> since those were never used anyway.
>
> pata_platform and ide_platform are carrying same driver names,
> to easily switch between these drivers, without need to touch
> platform code.
Why? There's a drivers/ide/arm/ide_arm.c IDe driver that some platforms
(not in the mainline) hack to access, e.g., CF cards in true-IDE mode.
About a month ago I submitted a patch to arm-linux-kernel switching that
driver to using platform-device. I got a reply, that it's not worth it now
that IDE is slowly becoming obsolete, and the pata_platform serves the
perpose perfectly well. I found this argument reasonable, I had the same
doubt, just wanted to double-check. So, why do we now need a new legacy
(a/drivers/ide/legacy/ide_platform.c) driver when a "modern" driver
exists?
Thanks
Guennadi
---
Guennadi Liakhovetski
-
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