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

Jeff Garzik
2005-12-09T11:42:12Z

Alan Cox wrote:
> On Iau, 2005-12-08 at 09:14 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
>>These are only for PATA. We don't care about _GTM/_STM on SATA.
>
>
> Even your piix driver supports PATA. Put the foaming (justified ;))
> hatred for ACPI aside for a moment and take a look at the real world as
> it unfortunately is right now.

First, I clearly said "except on ata_piix ... or PATA"

Second, don't put words in my mouth. I don't hate ACPI, and libata's
direction for hotswap and suspend/resume has zero to do with "foaming
hatred."

Right now, the top priority is getting SATA suspend/resume correct, and
_hopefully_ doing it in a way that's friendly to PATA. And as I said,
we don't care about _GTM/_STM on SATA.

Further, all current ACPI proposed code is completely half-assed. It's
"hope and pray", because libata configures the device and does resets --
which is bound to CONFLICT WITH ACPI.

Even further, I want to support both ACPI cases (x86[-64]) and non-ACPI
cases (other arches). Some platforms want ACPI for passwords or other
settings. Some platforms don't have ACPI at all. Locking libata into
ACPI _only_ for suspend/resume is completely unacceptable.

I'm not a hope-n-pray kind of guy. I want to get it right. People are
more than welcome to use unapplied patches floating around the 'net
until we get there.

Jeff