* libata: why do we need to define ATA_ENABLE_PATA instead of a CONFIG option?
@ 2006-03-07 1:04 Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2006-03-07 5:18 ` Jeff Garzik
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Ravikiran G Thirumalai @ 2006-03-07 1:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-ide
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: libata: why do we need to define ATA_ENABLE_PATA instead of a CONFIG option?
2006-03-07 1:04 libata: why do we need to define ATA_ENABLE_PATA instead of a CONFIG option? Ravikiran G Thirumalai
@ 2006-03-07 5:18 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-03-07 6:00 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2006-03-07 5:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ravikiran G Thirumalai; +Cc: linux-ide
Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote:
> 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.
ATA_ENABLE_PATA is there because PATA was highly experimental for a
while, and only developers and power users should be enabling it.
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: libata: why do we need to define ATA_ENABLE_PATA instead of a CONFIG option?
2006-03-07 5:18 ` Jeff Garzik
@ 2006-03-07 6:00 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Ravikiran G Thirumalai @ 2006-03-07 6:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik; +Cc: linux-ide
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 12:18:58AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote:
> >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.
>
> ATA_ENABLE_PATA is there because PATA was highly experimental for a
> while, and only developers and power users should be enabling it.
Is ata_piix still considered higly experimental? Its been around for
sometime I guess. Would this be time for a CONFIG option (atleast with
'experimental')?
Thanks,
Kiran
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-03-07 5:59 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-03-07 1:04 libata: why do we need to define ATA_ENABLE_PATA instead of a CONFIG option? Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2006-03-07 5:18 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-03-07 6:00 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).