From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PROBLEM + PATCH] Sata port disabled by BIOS gets initialized Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:27:26 +0900 Message-ID: <467109FE.1080009@gmail.com> References: <20056641.1181568752111.JavaMail.root@wombat.diezmil.com> <466D8C4C.8040605@gmail.com> <466EE66B.1040905@genesi-usa.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.162.233]:2566 "EHLO nz-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750979AbXFNJ1c (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 05:27:32 -0400 Received: by nz-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id n1so525902nzf for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2007 02:27:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <466EE66B.1040905@genesi-usa.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Matt Sealey Cc: shyam_iyer@dell.com, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Hello, Matt Sealey wrote: > Isn't there a case for speeding up boot and not wasting resources by > respecting BIOS settings in this regard? If you have an 8-port > controller on a board and one disk, forcing all of them enabled > regardless of BIOS settings is just 7 redundant port scans. Ports can be populated later with hotplug. > It should at least be an option - the default being to open up all > gunports, an option to respect BIOS settings and only use the ones > requested and enabled.. (I can see an edge case where a user disables > a disk in the BIOS to stop another OS from looking at/for it, but > wants the Linux system to boot from it) There hasn't been any actual need for such an option. Yes, there are situations where such option might help theoretically but how much? If you have an actual strong case for such option, I'm all ears. -- tejun