From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH] libata: provide the ability to disable a disk via the params. Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 16:15:43 -0500 Message-ID: <20131213211543.GI27070@htj.dyndns.org> References: <1386464187-6993-1-git-send-email-robbat2@gentoo.org> <20131212133935.GA32683@htj.dyndns.org> <52AA1E67.6000801@linux.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-qc0-f182.google.com ([209.85.216.182]:40510 "EHLO mail-qc0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751507Ab3LMVPr (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Dec 2013 16:15:47 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52AA1E67.6000801@linux.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Levente Kurusa Cc: "Robin H. Johnson" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 09:36:55PM +0100, Levente Kurusa wrote: > >1. > >Countering your nodisable comment, would it be valid to do: > >libata.force=2:disable libata.force=2.02:nodisable > >To disable all of port 2 except device 2? > > I think that makes sense and I support having 'nodisable'. I really don't want to. Let's please add whatever is necessary for fringe use cases but no more. It's not like this thing is generally useful. > >2. One of my friends wondered if it would be worthwhile to add force > >keywords for other HORKAGE bits, and if so, should the > >ata_lflag/ata_link force bits also be presented? > > I don't think so. Most of the other HORKAGEs are automatically > recognized and applied by the code. I think the only ones > which can cause trouble if not detected at first are the ones that are > currently in the list. Again, just whatever is immediately necessary, please. Thanks. -- tejun