linux-kernel - Re: sata AHCI controller over non-PCI bus

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: <4A883A1A.9040009@gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 16 Aug 2009 10:55:54 -0600
From:	Robert Hancock <hancockrwd@...il.com>
To:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
CC:	"Subbrathnam, Swaminathan" <swami.iyer@...com>,
	Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...mvista.com>,
	"linux-ide@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: sata AHCI controller over non-PCI bus

On 08/16/2009 06:53 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Subbrathnam, Swaminathan wrote:
>> Jeff,
>> From the below link (from Sergei) it seems that you have already
>> re-factored the AHCI implementation dependency on PCI. I would like to
>> add support for the OMAPL138 SATA on top of your changes. That would
>> be the ideal way forward for me.
>>
>> Have the ahci re-factoring changes queued for mainline merge already?
>> I just joined the list and hence do not know the status.
>>
>> Sergei,
>> Appreciate the response.
>
> I store the refactoring in git, on the "libahci" branch of
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jgarzik/libata-dev.git
>
> Unfortunately, I am having second thoughts about an element of the
> current design. With current Linux distributions, they do not appear to
> deal well with the multi-module dependency libata -> libahci -> ahci. If
> I had to guess, I would say that mkinitrd creation tools only look at
> one tree level's worth of kernel module dependencies.
>
> Thus, ahci would wind up -not- in initrd, in a libahci solution.
>
> I am thinking that I will just add Marvell and ATP support to ahci.c,
> and let someone else deal with libahci separation -- which is still needed.
>
> At this point, I would rather get Marvell/ATP support into users' hands,
> rather than wait for distros to catch up to modern technology.

If that's the case it seems clearly a mkinitrd bug. What distribution 
were you seeing this behavior on?
--
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/