[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B04413D.30302@ru.mvista.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:47:25 +0300
From: Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...mvista.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ide@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] pata: Update experimental tags
Hello.
Alan Cox wrote:
>>Having separate drivers wasn't the best decisions from the maintainability
>>point-of-view. It added needless complexity (different chips share the same
> It was most definitely a good decision, having maintained both sets of
Separating HPT36x was grounded enough decision but I can't say the same
of the separation of HPT3xxN.
> drivers at different times. It also makes it possible to do things the
> way highpoint does
Oh, don't remind me of that stupid code mostly not worth copying from...
>>PCI IDs which make detection across multiple drivers extremely painful) and
>>confusion (i.e. would you have guessed that HPT302 is supported by pata_hpt37x
>>while HPT302N by pata_hpt3x2n?).
How about HPT371N? ;-)
WBR, 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