From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [2.6.18-rc2-mm1] libata ate one PATA channel Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:05:23 -0400 Message-ID: <44CE5473.8080903@pobox.com> References: <20060728134550.030a0eb8@werewolf.auna.net> <44CD0E55.4020206@gmail.com> <20060731172452.76a1b6bd@werewolf.auna.net> <44CE2908.8080502@gmail.com> <1154363489.7230.61.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060731165011.GA6659@htj.dyndns.org> <44CE37CF.1010804@gmail.com> <1154371972.7230.95.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44CE515B.1060302@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]:391 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030329AbWGaTFc (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:05:32 -0400 In-Reply-To: <44CE515B.1060302@gmail.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Tejun Heo Cc: Alan Cox , "J.A. Magall?n" , "Linux-Kernel," , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton Tejun Heo wrote: > I like 'registering both always and disabling one' approach for > partially stolen legacy devices. We can make ->hard_port_no do the job > as before, but IMHO it's error-prone and only useful for very limited > cases (first legacy port stolen). > > Jeff, what do you think? The reason for hard_port_no's existence is the fact that is can sometimes differ from port_no, and we need to know the "real" port number, as opposed to the port number based on counting probed ports. If you eliminate the need for hard_port_no, feel free to erase it. Jeff