From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH] IDE: don't offer IDE_GENERIC on ia64 Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 19:49:12 -0400 Message-ID: <42FBE3F8.1090006@pobox.com> References: <200508111424.43150.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> <20050811214807.GA9775@havoc.gtf.org> <42FBC985.4030602@pobox.com> <200508111707.30861.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail.dvmed.net ([216.237.124.58]:20905 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932199AbVHKXtZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Aug 2005 19:49:25 -0400 In-Reply-To: <200508111707.30861.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Bjorn Helgaas Cc: B.Zolnierkiewicz@elka.pw.edu.pl, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, Tony Luck Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > You deduce this by the absence of SecO and PriO? I wonder if lspci > should be enhanced to notice this, too. I assume that the IRQ 169 > doesn't correspond to anything in /proc/interrupts. Correct. > So the scenario in question (correct me if I'm wrong) is that we > have a PCI IDE device that is handed off in compatibility mode (and > may only work in that mode). In that case, the PCI *device* still > exists, so shouldn't the IDE PCI code claim that device, notice that > it's in compatibility mode, and use the legacy ports and IRQs if > necessary? > > It seems like that all should work even if we don't have IDE_GENERIC. Yes, you're right. Thinking more, the PCI IDE code should pick that up, not the IDE_GENERIC code. Jeff