Re: [PATCH] New IDE/block driver for OCTEON SOC Compact Flash interface.

Re: [PATCH] New IDE/block driver for OCTEON SOC Compact Flash interface.

[David Daney]

Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> Hello.
> 
> David Daney wrote:
> 
>> As part of our efforts to get the Cavium OCTEON processor support
>> merged (see: http://marc.info/?l=linux-mips&m=122600487218824), we
>> have this CF driver for your consideration.
>>
>> Most OCTEON variants have *no* DMA or interrupt support on the CF
>> interface so a simple bit-banging approach is taken.  Although if DMA is
>> available, we do take advantage of it.
>>
>> The register definitions are part of the chip support patch set
>> mentioned above, and are not included here.
>>
>> At this point I would like to get feedback as to whether this is a
>> good approach for the CF driver, or perhaps generate ideas about other
>> possible approaches.
> 
>   It's totally unacceptable for drivers/ide/ as this is self-containeed 
> driver no using IDE core for anything, so this can only fit well to 
> drivers/block/.

Not quite true, it is using ide_fix_driveid() and ide_fixstring(), but I 
get your point.

> OTOH, CF support via self-contained driver is certainly a waste of code 
> since IDE core and (libata) are here to drive the CF devices as well. 
> What we need is a "normal" IDE or libata (at your option) driver.

I will have to try it to see if the hardware has the necessary support.

Thanks,
David Daney

Re: [PATCH] New IDE/block driver for OCTEON SOC Compact Flash interface.

[Sergei Shtylyov]

Hello

David Daney wrote:

>>> As part of our efforts to get the Cavium OCTEON processor support
>>> merged (see: http://marc.info/?l=linux-mips&m=122600487218824), we
>>> have this CF driver for your consideration.
>>>
>>> Most OCTEON variants have *no* DMA or interrupt support on the CF
>>> interface so a simple bit-banging approach is taken.  Although if 
>>> DMA is
>>> available, we do take advantage of it.
>>>
>>> The register definitions are part of the chip support patch set
>>> mentioned above, and are not included here.
>>>
>>> At this point I would like to get feedback as to whether this is a
>>> good approach for the CF driver, or perhaps generate ideas about other
>>> possible approaches.
>>
>>   It's totally unacceptable for drivers/ide/ as this is 
>> self-containeed driver no using IDE core for anything, so this can 
>> only fit well to drivers/block/.
>
> Not quite true, it is using ide_fix_driveid() and ide_fixstring(), but 
> I get your point.

   Overlooked those. I just saw that it looked very alike the version 
that I've seen -- hidden deep inside arch/mips/ at that time. :-)

> OTOH, CF support via self-contained driver is certainly a waste of 
> code since IDE core and (libata) are here to drive the CF devices as 
> well. What we need is a "normal" IDE or libata (at your option) driver.
>
> I will have to try it to see if the hardware has the necessary support.

   It sure does have the necessary support -- this is a part of CF spec.

> Thanks,
> David Daney

WBR, Sergei