From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergei Shtylyov Subject: Re: [PATCH] (2.6.19-rc6-mm2) pdc202xx_new cleanup Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 15:36:18 +0300 Message-ID: <457021C2.3040703@ru.mvista.com> References: <200611302151.33319.sshtylyov@ru.mvista.com> <20061201001321.1b946f0e@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from h155.mvista.com ([63.81.120.155]:36829 "EHLO imap.sh.mvista.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1031179AbWLAMew (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Dec 2006 07:34:52 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20061201001321.1b946f0e@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Cc: akpm@osdl.org, bzolnier@gmail.com, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Hello. Alan wrote: > I believe this is completely the wrong thing to do. Adding a ton of > changes to the existing (and stable) life expired drivers/ide driver > rather than keeping new and risky stuff in the new libata code is bad. The new and risky stuff is long agon in there. > The existing code *works*, its been rock solid since the reset drain fix Don't make me laugh. pdc202xx_new certainly doesn't deserve these compliments. It has known PLL problems even on x86 if you have more than 2 contorollers, and on non-x86 this turns into its complete inability to support anything above UltraDMA/33. > and it is the code everyone who is conservative relies on not to eat > their data. We have somewhere to do new and cool stuff its libata. I'm not interested in libata development currently, and interested in fixing the age-old crap in drivers/ide/. > I don't see the point in risking destabilising a good solid driver. I can > just about see justification for !X86 implementation of the PLL handling > but that is about it. All in a good time. > Alan WBR, Sergei