From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ravikiran G Thirumalai Subject: libata: why do we need to define ATA_ENABLE_PATA instead of a CONFIG option? Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 17:04:44 -0800 Message-ID: <20060307010444.GA6799@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from ns1.siteground.net ([207.218.208.2]:51129 "EHLO serv01.siteground.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932570AbWCGBEH (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Mar 2006 20:04:07 -0500 Received: from adsl-69-227-37-145.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net ([69.227.37.145]:25611 helo=localhost.localdomain) by serv01.siteground.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.52) id 1FGQcQ-0002dN-2a for linux-ide@vger.kernel.org; Mon, 06 Mar 2006 19:04:06 -0600 Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Currently, we can use the piix ide driver for Intel ICH5 IDE controllers, or use ata_piix (libata) by #defining ATA_ENABLE_PATA manually at inclulde/linux/libata.h. Why not have a CONFIG option to enable libata for such drivers instead of a #define in the code? I was wondering if there is any reason it is done this way. Thanks, Kiran