Re: RFC: ACPI/scsi/libata integration and hotswap

Jeff Garzik
2005-12-09T11:27:34Z

Erik Slagter wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-12-09 at 11:39 +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
>
>>>IMHO available infrastructure (and hardware abstraction!) should be used
>>>instead of being stubborn and pretend we know everything about any
>>>hardware.
>>
>>It's not about being stubborn, it's about maintaining and working on a
>>clean design. The developers have to do that, not the users. So forgive
>>people for being a little cautious about shuffling all sorts of ACPI
>>into the scsi core and/or drivers. We always need to think long term
>>here.
>>
>>Users don't care about the maintainability and cleanliness of the code,
>>they really just want it to work. Which is perfectly understandable.
>
>
> I perfectly understand that, what I do object against, is rejecting a
> concept (like this) totally because the developers(?) do not like the
> mechanism that's used (although ACPI is used everywhere else in the
> kernel). At least there might be some discussion where this sort of code
> belongs to make the design clean and easily maintainable, instead of
> instantly completely rejecting the concept, because OP simply doesn't
> like acpi.

Framing the discussion in terms of "like" and "dislike" proves you
understand nothing about the issues -- and lacking that understanding,
you feel its best to insult people.

libata suspend/resume needs to work on platforms without ACPI, such as
ppc64. libata reset needs to work even when BIOS is not present at all.
And by definition, anything that is done in ACPI can be done in the
driver.

The only thing libata cannot know is BIOS defaults. Anything else
libata doesn't know is a driver bug. We already know there are a ton of
settings that should be saved/restored, which is not done now. Until
that code is added to libata, talk of ACPI is premature. Further, even
the premature patch was obviously unacceptable, because you don't patch
ACPI code directly into libata and SCSI. That's the wrong approach.

Jeff