From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ravikiran G Thirumalai Subject: Re: libata: why do we need to define ATA_ENABLE_PATA instead of a CONFIG option? Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 22:00:01 -0800 Message-ID: <20060307060001.GA4629@localhost.localdomain> References: <20060307010444.GA6799@localhost.localdomain> <440D17C2.60200@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from ns1.siteground.net ([207.218.208.2]:48874 "EHLO serv01.siteground.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751278AbWCGF7X (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Mar 2006 00:59:23 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <440D17C2.60200@garzik.org> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Garzik Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org 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