[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <202303221310.44235.linux@zary.sk>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2023 13:10:42 +0100
From: Ondrej Zary <linux@...y.sk>
To: Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@....ru>
Cc: Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>,
Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Tim Waugh <tim@...erelk.net>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-parport@...ts.infradead.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/32] pata_parport-bpck6: rework bpck6 protocol driver
On Sunday 19 March 2023 21:02:43 Sergey Shtylyov wrote:
> On 3/18/23 9:55 PM, Ondrej Zary wrote:
>
> >>> This patch series simplifies bpck6 code, removing ppc6lnx.c file to match
> >>> the simplicity of other protocol drivers. It also converts the direct
> >>> port I/O access to paraport access functions. This conversion revealed that
> >>> there's no 8-bit and 16-bit EPP support in parport_pc so patch 11 implements
> >>> that.
> >>>
> >>> Tested with Backpack CD-RW 222011 and CD-RW 19350.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Ondrej Zary <linux@...y.sk>
> >>> ---
> >>> drivers/ata/pata_parport/bpck6.c | 452 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> >>> drivers/ata/pata_parport/ppc6lnx.c | 726 ---------------------------------------------------------
> >>> drivers/parport/parport_pc.c | 20 +-
> >>> include/uapi/linux/parport.h | 3 +
> >>> 4 files changed, 370 insertions(+), 831 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> OK, it's finally clear I can't keep up with reviewing 32 patches posted
> >> at once... Luckily, all those patches seem to be dealing with parallel port
> >> control), not the PATA control! Of course, when I volunteered to review the
> >> PATA driver patches, I didn't expect such patch volumes -- I mostly expected
> >> some odd fixes, not a massive driver rework... :-/
> >
> > So you're going to review the (P)ATA parts (if any) only.
>
> I saw no PATA parts in this patcheset...
>
> > Maybe Sudip (as parport maintainer) could review the parallel port parts?
>
> I have no objections! :-)
Looks like Sudip does not care. What needs to be done so this can be merged?
--
Ondrej Zary
Powered by blists - more mailing lists