From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: sata AHCI controller over non-PCI bus Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 08:53:33 -0400 Message-ID: <4A88014D.9060309@garzik.org> References: <4A7FE245.8020002@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 srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:39973 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752497AbZHPMxg (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Aug 2009 08:53:36 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: "Subbrathnam, Swaminathan" Cc: Sergei Shtylyov , "linux-ide@vger.kernel.org" , LKML Subbrathnam, Swaminathan wrote: > Jeff, > From the below link (from Sergei) it seems that you have already re-factored the AHCI implementation dependency on PCI. I would like to add support for the OMAPL138 SATA on top of your changes. That would be the ideal way forward for me. > > Have the ahci re-factoring changes queued for mainline merge already? I just joined the list and hence do not know the status. > > Sergei, > Appreciate the response. I store the refactoring in git, on the "libahci" branch of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jgarzik/libata-dev.git Unfortunately, I am having second thoughts about an element of the current design. With current Linux distributions, they do not appear to deal well with the multi-module dependency libata -> libahci -> ahci. If I had to guess, I would say that mkinitrd creation tools only look at one tree level's worth of kernel module dependencies. Thus, ahci would wind up -not- in initrd, in a libahci solution. I am thinking that I will just add Marvell and ATP support to ahci.c, and let someone else deal with libahci separation -- which is still needed. At this point, I would rather get Marvell/ATP support into users' hands, rather than wait for distros to catch up to modern technology. Jeff