Re: [PATCH v3] libsas: move ATA bits into a separate module

[Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>]

Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 
>> I disagree completely with this approach.
>>
>> You don't need a table of hooks for the case where libata is disabled in
>> .config.  Thus, it's only useful for the case where libsas is loaded as
>> a module, but libata is not.
> 
> Indeed, I misunderstood what James Bottomley wanted, so I reworked the
> patch.  It has the same functionality as before, but this module uses
> the module loader/symbol resolver for all the functions in libata, and
> allows libsas to (optionally) call into sas_ata with weak references by
> pushing a table of the necessary function pointers into libsas at
> sas_ata load time.  Thus, libsas doesn't need to load libata/sas_ata
> unless it actually finds a SATA device.
> 
>> The libsas code should directly call libata functions.  If ATA support
>> in libsas is disabled in .config, then those functions will never be
>> called, thus never loaded the libata module.
> 
> I certainly can (and now do) call libata functions from sas_ata.
> However, there are a few cases where libsas needs to call libata (ex.
> sas_ioctl); for those cases, I think the function pointers are still
> necessary because I don't want to make libsas require libata.  In any
> case, if ATA support is disabled in .config, sata_is_dev always returns
> 0, so the dead-code eliminator should zap that out of libsas entirely.

Looks MUCH better to me, and eliminates my objection to the 
libata-related hooks.

There remains the issue that I poke James about on IRC, namely that 
there is no need to emulate the SATA phy registers.  libata permits a 
driver high level access to the ATA engine without needing SATA SCRs. 
Witness all the PATA drivers, which obviously do not have SCRs at all.

	Jeff