Re: [PATCH 4/5] sata_mv new mv_sata_hardreset handler

[Mark Lord <liml@rtr.ca>]

Mark Lord wrote:
> Tejun Heo wrote:
>
>> The modularize patchset is not in libata-dev#upstream yet.  Please 
>> take a look at the following.
>>
>> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/tj/libata-dev.git;a=blob;f=drivers/ata/libata-core.c;h=7646523899c0bac8b06d2d0bfcde428e4583e04d;hb=731e61759c56d564322d56b9ff6f393fda1fbec4#l3533 
>>
>> I meant that you wouldn't need to copy the post-reset stuff and just 
>> could loop around new sata_link_hardreset() after the patchset.  I 
>> thought about breaking sata_link_hardreset() into two such that the 
>> post-reset part can be used separately but couldn't find any in-tree 
>> driver which would need such function.
> ..
> 
> Ah well, that's all of no use then, because sata_mv has to go upstream 
> now for 2.6.26.
> People have been waiting for this driver to improve for a very long time 
> now.
> 
> Given the time lag of the submission pipeline I'm forced to use for it,
> there likely is not enough time left to wait for another major rework
> of libata, and then rework sata_mv to match.
..

Though, mind you.. as soon as your rework *does* hit upstream,
I'll happily submit further sata_mv patches to take full advantage.

The less custom code in sata_mv in the end, the happier I'll be.
That's why there's a comment there right now reminding me of it.
 
> Basically, anything I do to sata_mv has to be tested here first,
> then broken into Jeff-size bites, fed to Marvell, approved by them,
> then posted here, then reworked according to the whims of the day,
> then resent to Marvell, reapproved by them, then reposted here, ...
> 
> It just takes too long overall.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> -- 
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html