From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergei Shtylyov Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ide: add at91_ide driver Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 13:55:59 +0300 Message-ID: <498C173F.4000908@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=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from h155.mvista.com ([63.81.120.155]:16605 "EHLO imap.sh.mvista.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753949AbZBFK4E (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Feb 2009 05:56:04 -0500 In-Reply-To: <498B0F22.3090403@ru.mvista.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Stanislaw Gruszka , Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Victor , linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk Hello, I wrote: >> 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. > Let's then support say all the PCI IDE chipsets with the single > driver (actully, there was a driver that tried to support 2 > incompatible Promise chip families but it got split finally). To say the truth, there are stil at least 2 examples of such drivers: hpt366 and aec6210. While the former is justified by the bogus chip identification poilicy used by the vendor, the latter has no justification at all. MBR, Sergei