From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergei Shtylyov Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ide: add at91_ide driver Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 23:03:23 +0300 Message-ID: <498B460B.20205@ru.mvista.com> References: <200902031147.22827.stf_xl@wp.pl> <200902041547.44149.stf_xl@wp.pl> <4989BC8B.4010105@ru.mvista.com> <200902051601.50822.stf_xl@wp.pl> <498B0F22.3090403@ru.mvista.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from h155.mvista.com ([63.81.120.155]:60774 "EHLO imap.sh.mvista.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754723AbZBEUC6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:02:58 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Andrew Victor Cc: Stanislaw Gruszka , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Victor , linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk Andrew Victor wrote: >>>>>>AT91SAM9. >>>>>Ok, currently only SAM9 can be used with driver. However I think adding >>>>>support to AT91RM9200 to this driver will be not much effort. >>>> Can you answer the simple question: why we should try to support two >>>>incompatible chips with a single driver? Because the driver name will be >>>>shorter? :-) >>>Very funny. I think patch adding RM9200 support to this driver will have >>>less >>>than 50 lines changeset, whereas writing new driver would be about 500 >>>lines. >> This approach is so broken-minded that I'm just out words to argue any >>more. > This driver should also work on the Atmel AT91CAP9 and AT572D940HF processors. > So I see no valid reason why the driver cannot be called at91_ide. I've already said: call it whatever you want. Just don't try to add support for an incompatible AT91 SMC. > Regards, > Andrew Victor MBR, Sergei