[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46A7A8FB.5090909@ru.mvista.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 23:48:11 +0400
From: Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...mvista.com>
To: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@....de>
Cc: Vitaly Bordug <vitb@...nel.crashing.org>,
linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...abs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] [IDE] Platform IDE driver (was: MMIO IDE driver)
Guennadi Liakhovetski 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
Wrong list to submit sych stuff, post to linux-ide.
> 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
Ignore such replies in the future. ;-)
> 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?
Good question (I know the answer but won't tell ;-).
> Thanks
> Guennadi
MBR, Sergei
-
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