From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anton Vorontsov Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] add CNS3xxx AHCI support Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 13:51:57 +0300 Message-ID: <20110106105157.GA9560@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> References: <1294206187-11487-1-git-send-email-mkl0301@gmail.com> <4D24B53C.4020009@pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Received: from mail-ew0-f46.google.com ([209.85.215.46]:39425 "EHLO mail-ew0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753034Ab1AFKwE (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jan 2011 05:52:04 -0500 Received: by ewy5 with SMTP id 5so7275401ewy.19 for ; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 02:52:02 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Lin Mac Cc: Jeff Garzik , htejun@gmail.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 02:43:08PM +0800, Lin Mac wrote: [...] > > It is overkill to rename the entirety of ahci_platform just for one override > > function. > > This sort of thing I would have expected to be added directly to > > ahci_platform.c. > It might be overkill for only one controller. but it is more clean and > readable to have different SoC specific changes in separate files, > especially when more SoCs need to make similar changes. I think that renaming the file is not necessary. You can just rename the module in the makefile. Personally I like the current approach more than putting controller-specific fixups directly into ahci_platform. Thanks, -- Anton Vorontsov Email: cbouatmailru@gmail.com