From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergei Shtylyov Subject: Re: [PATCH pata-2.6] cmd64x: procfs code fixes/cleanups (take 2) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:15:21 +0400 Message-ID: <462368D9.8060407@ru.mvista.com> References: <200704142011.l3EKBBhf025590@harpo.it.uu.se> <462136AF.9060505@ru.mvista.com> <46215347.2000403@rtr.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from rtsoft2.corbina.net ([85.21.88.2]:43527 "HELO mail.dev.rtsoft.ru" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1030493AbXDPMOY (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Apr 2007 08:14:24 -0400 In-Reply-To: <46215347.2000403@rtr.ca> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Lord Cc: Mikael Pettersson , bzolnier@gmail.com, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Hello. Mark Lord wrote: >>>> - correct the chipset names (from CMDxxx to PCI-xxx) >>> Please explain why this rename is a correction. >> Because the chips are officially named PCI064[036] and PCI-64[89]. > We normally name things with a combination of brand and chip number. > Lots of companies could have chips with PCI in the name, > but the CMD64x designator makes it quite clear what we're dealing with > here. Note that I'm only changing designator in the procfs output, i.e. not something important to end user. > In the machines I have here with these chips, > they are clearly labelled as "CMD" and then "PCI646.." Although I've never seen the chip, I guess that should be logo, not the name. > -ml MBR, Sergei