Re: [PATCH 2.6.11-rc2 0/29] ide: driver updates

[Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>]

On Mer, 2005-02-02 at 08:31, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > 	Merges drivers/ide/pci/*.h files into their corresponding *.c
> > 	files.  Rationales are
> > 	1. There's no reason to separate pci drivers into header and
> > 	   body.  No header file is shared and they're simple enough.
> > 	2. struct pde_pci_device_t *_chipsets[] are _defined_ in the
> > 	   header files.  That isn't the custom and there's no good
> > 	   reason to do differently in these drivers.
> > 	3. Tracking changelogs shows that the bugs fixed by 00 and 01
> > 	   are introduced during mass-updating ide pci drivers by
> > 	   forgetting to update *.h files.
> 
> Personally, I agree.  However, I would ask Alan for his rationale before 
> applying this...

Historically they were split so they stayed split. SCSI has mostly (c/o
hch) switched away from that and it seems sensible for IDE to do so.

> 
> > 07_ide_reg_valid_t_endian_fix.patch
> > 
> > 	ide_reg_valid_t contains bitfield flags but doesn't reverse
> > 	bit orders using __*_ENDIAN_BITFIELD macros.  And constants
> > 	for ide_reg_valid_t, IDE_{TASKFILE|HOB}_STD_{IN|OUT}_FLAGS,
> > 	are defined as byte values which are correct only on
> > 	little-endian machines.  This patch defines reversed constants
> > 	and .h byte union structure to make things correct on big
> > 	endian machines.  The only code which uses above macros is in
> > 	flagged_taskfile() and the code is currently unused, so this
> > 	patch doesn't change any behavior.  (The code will get used in
> > 	later patches.)
> 
> doesn't this "fix" change behavior on existing big endian machines?

My question too, remember that there is I/O byte order swizzling afoot
in 
the I/O macros.



Generally looks good IMHO.