From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/13] libata-acpi: add ATA_FLAG_ACPI_SATA port flag Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 11:56:31 +0900 Message-ID: <4634095F.2050803@gmail.com> References: <11772636662936-git-send-email-htejun@gmail.com> <46339951.3080508@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <46339951.3080508@garzik.org> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Garzik 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 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 >> --- >> 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