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: <200707262211.10223.bzolnier@gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jul 2007 22:11:10 +0200
From:	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>
To:	Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@....de>
Cc:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Vitaly Bordug <vitb@...nel.crashing.org>,
	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)


Hi,

On Thursday 26 July 2007, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Alan Cox 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 

There are some rough edges (especially older and/or rare hardware,
this goes for both cotrollers and devices) that SCSI/libata don't
handle and IDE subsystem do.

> have to remove soon, thus having to persuade its users, who by that time 

Well, we've been hearing "soon" for two years now...

> will get used to it and will not want to invest money into switching to 
> another one...

PS wrt ide_arm.c changes, you really should have cc:ed the author... ;)

Thanks,
Bart
-
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/