Re: [PATCH/RFC] Port of pdc202xx_new driver to libata

[Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>]

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:58:50 -0400, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> wrote:

> >>My question is, in the current kernel, the IDE subsystem drives PATA chips
> >>and libata drives SATA chips. Will PATA driver like this be accepted into
> >>libata?
> >
> >
> > My opinion is: yes but not now, final answer is of course left to Jeff.
> 
> With the progress currently being made, I think my preference would be
> to start collecting PATA drivers such this in my libata-dev queue.
> 
> I would not send these PATA drivers upstream until the PATA to-do items
> are complete (see other email), but it would be nice to have a central
> location (both BK and patch on kernel.org) for developers and users to
> mess with PATA support.

I was going to start libata-pata-2.6 (from libata-dev-2.6)
but this sounds even better :)

and lets ignore /dev/hda vs /dev/sda issue completely
for now in hope that udev will fix this for us etc. :)

> My own comments:
> 
> >> obj-$(CONFIG_SCSI_ATA_PIIX) += libata.o ata_piix.o
> >>> +obj-$(CONFIG_SCSI_PATA_PDC_NEW) += libata.o pata_pdc202xx_new.o
> >
> >
> > why not jus pata_pdc_new? or pata_pdc_27x?
> 
> I would prefer to eliminate the "_new" suffix.  Other than that I don't
> really care.  If I had written the driver, I would have named it
> pata_pdc202xx I suppose.

There is a high chance that somebody will also port
pdc202xx_old driver to libata so pata_pdc202xx will
be confusing.