From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.13] libata: use common pci remove in ahci Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 17:51:07 -0400 Message-ID: <431CBDCB.40903@pobox.com> References: <20050903071852.95A10271C2@lns1058.lss.emc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20050903071852.95A10271C2@lns1058.lss.emc.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Brett Russ Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Brett Russ wrote: > Jeff, > > This looked prime to cut since ahci_remove_one() was a functionally > identical to ata_pci_remove_one() except for the interrupt disable > (have_msi) bits, which fit nicely into ahci_host_stop(). However, > > 1) Will it work? > > 2) Isn't it wrong for the IRQ disable at the chip to occur *after* > free_irq() is called to disconnect the handler (independent of > question 1...since this is the case currently)? Granted, all of the > ports have gone through scsi_remove_host() but theoretically there > still is a possibility the chip could interrupt. > > If I'm wrong on both counts I'll blame it on need for sleep... :-) Moving AHCI away from ata_pci_remove_one() was actually intentional. This gives the driver a bit more freedom: legacy region handling and ->host_stop() became unnecessary. Also, I was concerned that ata_pci_remove_one() might grow into a one-size-fits-all unmaintainable behemoth. Short term, if one were being obsessive, a potential cleanup could be to make common the two loops in ahci_remove_one()/ata_pci_remove_one(). Long term, libata driver API should become more like the register_foo()/unregister_foo() interfaces you see elsewhere in the kernel. That direction has the potential to shake up the current code path through ata_pci_remove_one(). So... your patch, while technically correct, is going in the opposite direction to where I want to go :) Jeff