Re: Random libata comments...

[Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>]

Tejun Heo wrote:
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>
>> * I agree with others that using the "ata_drive_probe_reset" can lead 
>> to confusion on the uses of the word "drive".  Replacing that with 
>> "do" or something else would be nice.
> 
> Will do.
> 
>> * As the ata_drive_probe_reset argument list continues to grow, I lean 
>> more and more towards moving all those function pointers to struct 
>> ata_port_operations.  One of the problems with the drivers/ide layer 
>> IMO is that the list of all hooks used is not immediately clear upon 
>> first read, whereas with libata it is clear -- with the notable 
>> exception of ata_drive_probe_reset().
> 
> ->error_handler() takes over all of ata_drive_probe_reset() after 
> hotplug patchset and all ->probe_reset() related stuff are killed.  The 
> same applies to ->error_handler() though.  I agree with you that the 
> arguments are ugly, but also there are already too many non-essential 
> operations in ata_port_operations.  I was hoping something can be done 
> to resolve both issues.
> 
> I'm okay with moving reset ops into ata_port_operations but we need to 
> do more than that, IMHO.

For one example of that, BMDMA-specific operations need to be moved out 
of ata_port_operations, to a BMDMA-driver-specific API.  Ultimately 
libata should be a high level ->qc_issue/ata_qc_complete() style API 
exclusively.

	Jeff