Re: [2.6 patch] PCMCIA mustn't select HAVE_IDE

[Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk>]

On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 01:10:02AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:03:45PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 12:52:23AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >...
> > So this is a only impacting ARM wrt. PCMCIA, and given that ARM supplies
> > an asm/ide.h, it's _entirely_ reasonable that if a platform has PCMCIA
> > then it supports IDE.
> > 
> > > We could simply always select HAVE_IDE on arm instead of manually 
> > > setting which platforms could possibly get IDE support (e.g. are there
> > > any boards with PCI slots for which HAVE_IDE is currently not 
> > > selected?).
> > 
> > You could, if there was a demand for it.  As no one has added that,
> > I conclude that its less common for people to stick an IDE controller
> > into a PCI backplane.
> 
> People can always enable code for stuff they don't use.
> 
> But instead of having 14 ARM platforms plus PCMCIA (which is offered 
> unconditionally on all ARM platforms...) select HAVE_IDE it's simpler
> to select it once for all ARM platforms.

That would seem logical, but Bart objects to that idea.

However, consider that we're gradually transitioning over to being
exclusively libata only.

> > In fact, there are only three classes of ARM platforms which have PCI
> > selected but not HAVE_IDE - IOP13xx, IXP2000, and Orion.  I suspect
> > the only reason they don't select it because they now use the ATA code
> > rather than the old IDE code - that's certainly true of Orion.
> 
> The libata options are offered unconditionally on all platforms...

It wasn't *my* choice to restrict IDE on ARM.  See Bart for that
decision.

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of: