From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Brett Russ Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.13] libata: use common pci remove in ahci Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 11:09:27 -0400 Message-ID: <431DB127.3010809@emc.com> References: <20050903071852.95A10271C2@lns1058.lss.emc.com> <431CBDCB.40903@pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <431CBDCB.40903@pobox.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Garzik Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Jeff Garzik wrote: > Brett Russ wrote: >> 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 :) Good to know, thanks for explaining the goals. How about question #2 above? Thanks, BR