From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Dooks Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] pata_samsung: Add Samsung PATA controller driver Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 09:57:14 +0100 Message-ID: <20100527085714.GK4720@trinity.fluff.org> References: <1274948524-2970-1-git-send-email-kgene.kim@samsung.com> <1274948524-2970-5-git-send-email-kgene.kim@samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jassi Brar Cc: Kukjin Kim , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, ben-linux@fluff.org, Abhilash Kesavan List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 05:43:47PM +0900, Jassi Brar wrote: > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Kukjin Kim w= rote: > > From: Abhilash Kesavan > > > > Adds support for the Samsung PATA controller. This driver is based = on the > > Libata subsystem and references the earlier patches sent for IDE su= bsystem. > > > > Signed-off-by: Abhilash Kesavan > > Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim > > --- > > =A0drivers/ata/Kconfig =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0| =A0 =A09 + > > =A0drivers/ata/Makefile =A0 =A0 =A0 | =A0 =A01 + > > =A0drivers/ata/pata_samsung.c | =A0591 >=20 > Fasten your seat belts before reading further.... >=20 > Rather than generic 'samsung', I would suggest the driver named > after the SoC, that is supported first(chronologically) in mainline k= ernel. > All newer SoCs should be simply taken to contain the controller of th= at SoC. > Otherwise, the same naming problem comes back to haunt us should > Samsung decides to use a different IP in future SoCs. What would we > call that driver? pata_samsung_v2.c ? I'm not so bothered, but it could be pata_samsung_cfcon or anything, a new block could be called pata_samsung_v2 or fred for all I really care about this. =20 > my two sparks > Jassi --=20 --=20 Ben Q: What's a light-year? A: One-third less calories than a regular year. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ben-linux@fluff.org (Ben Dooks) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 09:57:14 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 4/4] pata_samsung: Add Samsung PATA controller driver In-Reply-To: References: <1274948524-2970-1-git-send-email-kgene.kim@samsung.com> <1274948524-2970-5-git-send-email-kgene.kim@samsung.com> Message-ID: <20100527085714.GK4720@trinity.fluff.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 05:43:47PM +0900, Jassi Brar wrote: > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Kukjin Kim wrote: > > From: Abhilash Kesavan > > > > Adds support for the Samsung PATA controller. This driver is based on the > > Libata subsystem and references the earlier patches sent for IDE subsystem. > > > > Signed-off-by: Abhilash Kesavan > > Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim > > --- > > ?drivers/ata/Kconfig ? ? ? ?| ? ?9 + > > ?drivers/ata/Makefile ? ? ? | ? ?1 + > > ?drivers/ata/pata_samsung.c | ?591 > > Fasten your seat belts before reading further.... > > Rather than generic 'samsung', I would suggest the driver named > after the SoC, that is supported first(chronologically) in mainline kernel. > All newer SoCs should be simply taken to contain the controller of that SoC. > Otherwise, the same naming problem comes back to haunt us should > Samsung decides to use a different IP in future SoCs. What would we > call that driver? pata_samsung_v2.c ? I'm not so bothered, but it could be pata_samsung_cfcon or anything, a new block could be called pata_samsung_v2 or fred for all I really care about this. > my two sparks > Jassi -- -- Ben Q: What's a light-year? A: One-third less calories than a regular year.