From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergei Shtylyov Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] [IDE] Platform IDE driver (was: MMIO IDE driver) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 00:01:27 +0400 Message-ID: <46A7AC17.9060309@ru.mvista.com> References: <20070725165318.5331.23795.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <46A7A8FB.5090909@ru.mvista.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from gateway-1237.mvista.com ([63.81.120.155]:26158 "EHLO imap.sh.mvista.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750822AbXGYT70 (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:59:26 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Guennadi Liakhovetski Cc: Vitaly Bordug , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: >>>>This is now very similar to pata_platform.c, they both use >>>>same platform data structure and same resources. >>>>To achieve that, byte_lanes_swapping platform data variable >>>>and platform specified iops removed from that driver. It's fine, >>>>since those were never used anyway. >>>>pata_platform and ide_platform are carrying same driver names, >>>>to easily switch between these drivers, without need to touch >>>>platform code. >>>Why? There's a drivers/ide/arm/ide_arm.c IDe driver that some platforms (not >>>in the mainline) hack to access, e.g., CF cards in true-IDE mode. About a >>>month ago I submitted a patch to arm-linux-kernel switching that >> Wrong list to submit sych stuff, post to linux-ide. > Not entirely. The patch (or other patches in the series) would also touch > ARM platforms in the mainline, currently using that driver. As I didn't Was worth cross-posting to linux-ide anyway to get the IDE experts' feedback. ;-) > have a chance to test them due to lack of hardware, I posted on arm, > asking if anyone would test those platforms for me. ... and they laughed at you? ;-) >>>driver to using platform-device. I got a reply, that it's not worth it now >>>that IDE is slowly becoming obsolete, and the pata_platform serves the >>>perpose perfectly well. I found this argument reasonable, I had the same >> Ignore such replies in the future. ;-) > It was largely in accordance with my own opinion, so, I chose to accept > it:-) It's not clear why you decided to waste time on it then. :-) >>>doubt, just wanted to double-check. So, why do we now need a new legacy >>>(a/drivers/ide/legacy/ide_platform.c) driver when a "modern" driver exists? >> Good question (I know the answer but won't tell ;-). > You've been very cooperative, thanks. In fact, I also highly doubt that we need it. What we'd need is an OF driver. > Thanks > Guennadi WBR, Sergei