Re: libata and PATA devices

[Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>]

Mark Lord wrote:
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 
>> currently no one should be using libata for PATA support.
> 
> 
> We emailed back and forth extensively about how this has
> not been true since early this year.  Modern laptops are
> using libata for the ICH6M support, simply because libata
> claims that chipset, and the IDE driver does not.
> These laptops are using PATA drives (eg. "FUJITSU MHV2100AH").

This sounds like a misconfigured kernel.  The IDE driver should pick up 
the PATA port, and libata should pick up the SATA port.  Anything else 
is a bug, and should be addressed by me or Bart.


>> Exaggeration.  We're talking about a single #define here, to enable 
>> ATAPI.
> 
> 
> Fine for ATAPI, though it's two defines -- need to also enable DMA.

What define enables/disables DMA, in your opinion?


> And Passthru is much bigger than a pair of #defines.

That is a separate $thread.


> Push some of this stuff out to the -mm tree, and maybe we'll get
> more people exercising the code, and it'll progress more quickly.

Both passthru and ATAPI code are already available in the -mm tree, 
unless Andrew made a mistake and accidentally dropped passthru.

	Jeff