Re: [PATCH 07/13] libata-acpi: add ATA_FLAG_ACPI_SATA port flag

[Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>]

Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 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 <htejun@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  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.

Can you please elaborate a bit?  As I wrote while talking with Alan, I
really don't know how to do auto-matching.  Personally, I don't think
there is a way to do that safely but will be happy to implement it if
someone can enlighten me.  :-)

-- 
tejun