From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/13] libata-acpi: add ATA_FLAG_ACPI_SATA port flag Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 14:58:25 -0400 Message-ID: <46339951.3080508@garzik.org> References: <11772636662936-git-send-email-htejun@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <11772636662936-git-send-email-htejun@gmail.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Tejun Heo Cc: mjg59@srcf.ucam.org, rdunlap@xenotime.net, trenn@suse.de, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, forrest.zhao@gmail.com, kristen.c.accardi@intel.com, lenb@kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Tejun Heo wrote: > Whether a controller needs IDE or SATA ACPI hierarchy is determined by > the programming interface of the controller not by whether the > controller is SATA or PATA, or it supports slave device or not. This > patch adds ATA_FLAG_ACPI_SATA port flags which tells libata-acpi that > the port needs SATA ACPI nodes, and sets the flag for ahci and > sata_sil24. > > Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo > --- > drivers/ata/ahci.c | 3 ++- > drivers/ata/libata-acpi.c | 10 +++++----- > drivers/ata/sata_sil24.c | 3 ++- > include/linux/libata.h | 1 + > 4 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) I don't think the situation is as static as a compiled-in driver flag implies. And I'm not really convinced a driver flag is needed, or wanted. If anything, the only flag we /may/ need could be a ATA_FLAG_NEVER_EVER_DO_ACPI_FOR_THIS_CONTROLLER. Jeff