[PATCH v3] libata: pata_samsung_cf: Add Samsung PATA controller driver

[jgarzik@pobox.com (Jeff Garzik)]

On 06/10/2010 04:56 AM, Ben Dooks wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 04:52:07AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> On 06/10/2010 03:50 AM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
>>> From: Abhilash Kesavan<a.kesavan@samsung.com>
>>>
>>> Adds support for the Samsung PATA controller. This driver is based on the
>>> Libata subsystem and references the earlier patches sent for IDE subsystem.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Abhilash Kesavan<a.kesavan@samsung.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim<kgene.kim@samsung.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Changes since v2:
>>> - Changed the DRV_NAME to pata_samsung_cf
>>> - Used msleep instead of mdelay
>>>
>>>    drivers/ata/Makefile          |    1 +
>>>    drivers/ata/pata_samsung_cf.c |  608 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>    3 files changed, 618 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>    create mode 100644 drivers/ata/pata_samsung_cf.c
>>
>> Acked-by: Jeff Garzik<jgarzik@redhat.com>
>>
>>
>> I presume you'll send this upstream via the appropriate ARM tree.
>
> It depends on whether Linus un-declares his current suspensio nof
> ARM based work. The machine updtaes should go via the samsung tree
> but whether to send the driver that was is another matter (I prefer
> to have drivers go via the driver's tree to avoid clashes in
> Makefile and Kconfig).

I don't mind merging it, but usually platform drivers do not build 
and/or work without additional platform glue.  Isn't that the case here?


> PS, what's your policy on -rc inclusion of completely new code
> such as this?

New drivers are fine (which is standard policy outside libata, too), as 
they will not cause regressions, and will enable new users.

	Jeff