From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Albert Lee Subject: Re: [PATCH] libata: add host_set->next for legacy two host_sets case, take #3 Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 18:53:52 +0800 Message-ID: <44A25FC0.4090002@tw.ibm.com> References: <20060612051727.GD9166@htj.dyndns.org> <448D0FF9.1080605@pobox.com> <20060612101419.GB5751@htj.dyndns.org> <448D6DBF.9010604@pobox.com> <20060612140538.GA3892@htj.dyndns.org> <44A25979.3020709@tw.ibm.com> <44A25D09.4060705@gmail.com> Reply-To: albertl@mail.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from e32.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.150]:61097 "EHLO e32.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030374AbWF1Kx6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jun 2006 06:53:58 -0400 Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106]) by e32.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k5SArwKq006002 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2006 06:53:58 -0400 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (d03av03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.169]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.6/NCO/VER7.0) with ESMTP id k5SAsESW186490 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2006 04:54:14 -0600 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k5SArufc003686 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2006 04:53:57 -0600 In-Reply-To: <44A25D09.4060705@gmail.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Tejun Heo Cc: albertl@mail.com, Jeff Garzik , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, Alan Cox , Brian King , Doug Maxey , Unicorn Chang Tejun Heo wrote: > Albert Lee wrote: > >> Hmm, the current patch looks more like a temporary solution. The >> legacy mode >> ATA_HOST_SIMPLEX host_set->flags could be assigned to both legacy ports. >> In the long term, have one host_set for both legacy ports >> instead of two host_sets for both legacy ports can fix the problem. >> >> A patch was submitted by Unicorn, but it looks not good/elegant >> enough. :( >> It will be nice if you have plan for furthur legacy two host_sets case >> fixes... > > > Hello, Albert. > > Yeap, this host_set->next thing is a temporary solution and we need to > handle legacy ports in one host_set. I've seen Unicorn's patches. I > agree that those are in the right direction but we seem to need more > clean up in driver initialization code. I'll look into it once the next > iteration of PMP patches are finished. Great to hear that. Looking forward to it. :) -- albert