[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46A8FB86.2010907@ru.mvista.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:52:38 +0400
From: Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...mvista.com>
To: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@....de>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] [IDE] Platform IDE driver (was: MMIO IDE driver)
Hello.
Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
>>>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?
>>We don't *need* it but some people still want to use old IDE and the
>>author was willing to make it neatly compatible so that anything that
>>works with the pata_platform should be able to use the ide_platform
>>driver and vice versa. For the shorter term that can only be a good thing
>>- arch code doesn't need to care about which driver is used, end users
>>can pick and it doesn't end up adding new ties between code and old IDE.
> Ok, thanks for the explanation Alan. So, there's no technical argument,
> just "being nice to the users", and add a new driver, which we know we'll
> have to remove soon, thus having to persuade its users, who by that time
Define "soon". :-)
> will get used to it and will not want to invest money into switching to
> another one...
Invest into what if the drivers are functionally identical?
> 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