From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/15] libata: add dev->sata_spd_limit and helpers Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2006 04:12:35 -0400 Message-ID: <442F8773.70306@pobox.com> References: <11438230982257-git-send-email-htejun@gmail.com> <442ED9C5.3080301@pobox.com> <442F222F.3010302@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:53993 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932078AbWDBIMn (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Apr 2006 04:12:43 -0400 In-Reply-To: <442F222F.3010302@gmail.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Tejun Heo Cc: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, albertcc@tw.ibm.com, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Tejun Heo wrote: > Jeff Garzik wrote: >> NAK, I definitely don't want to closely associate phy and device >> parameters, because they are fundamentally two different things. >> >> We program and address PHYs, so perhaps a sata_phy struct is needed. >> >> Port multipliers also get interesting because we need to use ATA-ish >> commands to talk to the PM phys. Perhaps a struct ata_port_mult >> inside ata_device is warranted, where one stores an array of sata_phy >> structs, and other PM-specific details. >> > > Hmmm... Yeah I also thought about extracting out PHY related information > out such that PATAs share them, SATA and PM have their own maybe marked > to indicate how they are connected. But that looked like going too far > especially because we don't have PM support yet. So, sticking it into > dev was sorta middle-ground. > > How about putting it into ata_port around ap->cbl? This fits the current > model better and should work the same. Sounds good to me. Jeff