From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Lord Subject: Re: [PATCH pata-2.6] cmd64x: procfs code fixes/cleanups (take 2) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:59:15 -0400 Message-ID: <46250AF3.6090105@rtr.ca> References: <200704142011.l3EKBBhf025590@harpo.it.uu.se> <462136AF.9060505@ru.mvista.com> <46215347.2000403@rtr.ca> <462368D9.8060407@ru.mvista.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ottawa-hs-64-26-128-89.s-ip.magma.ca ([64.26.128.89]:1949 "EHLO mail.rtr.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1031256AbXDQR7R (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:59:17 -0400 In-Reply-To: <462368D9.8060407@ru.mvista.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Sergei Shtylyov Cc: Mikael Pettersson , bzolnier@gmail.com, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > 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. Err.. in this case, the procfs output *is* there for the end-user. Using the name printed on the chip, which matches the cmdxxx.c driver name, is by far the least confusing way to do it here. >> 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. Then perhaps you should test the scheme against the real hardware before patching it. Cheers