From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: libata: why do we need to define ATA_ENABLE_PATA instead of a CONFIG option? Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 00:18:58 -0500 Message-ID: <440D17C2.60200@garzik.org> References: <20060307010444.GA6799@localhost.localdomain> 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]:31675 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750997AbWCGFTA (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Mar 2006 00:19:00 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20060307010444.GA6799@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Ravikiran G Thirumalai Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote: > Currently, we can use the piix ide driver for Intel ICH5 IDE controllers, or > use ata_piix (libata) by #defining ATA_ENABLE_PATA manually at > inclulde/linux/libata.h. Why not have a CONFIG option to enable libata for such > drivers instead of a #define in the code? I was wondering if there is any > reason it is done this way. ATA_ENABLE_PATA is there because PATA was highly experimental for a while, and only developers and power users should be enabling it. Jeff