From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: sata_promise and SATA+PATA controllers in general Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 22:11:55 -0400 Message-ID: <432E1E6B.7040001@pobox.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail.dvmed.net ([216.237.124.58]:4998 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932291AbVISCMA (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Sep 2005 22:12:00 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: David Lloyd Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org David Lloyd wrote: > Does this mean have e.g. a pata_port_ops member as well as a > sata_port_ops member on the ata_probe_ent/ata_host_set, and mark each > port as being either PATA or SATA with a flag of some sort? Or, would definitely not. > it be best to have a port_ops pointer per port? Each port should be able to export unique behavior. That implies having per-port hooks, since host-global hooks make it impossible for one port to have different hooks from another port. Establishing a global limit of two unique behaviors (sata_port_ops, pata_port_ops) is not scalable at all. Further complicating things, some hooks (such as ->irq_clear) are host-wide hooks and not port-specific hooks. Jeff