linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] [IDE] Platform IDE driver (was: MMIO IDE driver)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.60.0707252203160.6234@poirot.grange>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:09:24 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@....de>
To:	Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...mvista.com>
cc:	Vitaly Bordug <vitb@...nel.crashing.org>,
	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] [IDE] Platform IDE driver (was: MMIO IDE driver)

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:

> Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> 
> > >   Wrong list to submit sych stuff, post to linux-ide.
> 
> > Not entirely. The patch (or other patches in the series) would also touch
> > ARM platforms in the mainline, currently using that driver. As I didn't 
> 
>    Was worth cross-posting to linux-ide anyway to get the IDE experts'
> feedback. ;-)

linux-arm* mailing lists do not allow cross-posting.

> > have a chance to test them due to lack of hardware, I posted on arm, asking
> > if anyone would test those platforms for me.
> 
>   ... and they laughed at you? ;-)

No, noone had that hardware either:-) Those who had preferred to forget 
about it, I guess.

> > It was largely in accordance with my own opinion, so, I chose to accept
> > it:-)
> 
>    It's not clear why you decided to waste time on it then. :-)

Because I myself was in the situation where my local version of the driver 
was filling with #ifdef's supporting all possible variations of our 
hardware, so, I switched it to platform_driver to clean up that mess. And 
then decided to ask if others would consider it useful. Just in case. I 
hoped they wouldn't.

> > > > 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 ;-).
> 
> > You've been very cooperative, thanks.
> 
>    In fact, I also highly doubt that we need it.  What we'd need is an OF
> driver.

Great, thanks. Now we have to find out why Alan acked it (added to cc).

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/