From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Port of pdc202xx_new driver to libata Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:16:35 +0200 Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <58cb370e04101313161223717f@mail.gmail.com> References: <00bb01c4b10c$4b2ab330$7301a8c0@tw.ibm.com> <58cb370e04101312321c78f3b8@mail.gmail.com> <416D88FA.1050200@pobox.com> Reply-To: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from rproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.170.207]:61924 "EHLO mproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S269789AbUJMUQg (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Oct 2004 16:16:36 -0400 Received: by mproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 77so16750rnk for ; Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:16:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <416D88FA.1050200@pobox.com> List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Garzik Cc: Albert Lee , IDE Linux On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:58:50 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > >>My question is, in the current kernel, the IDE subsystem drives PATA chips > >>and libata drives SATA chips. Will PATA driver like this be accepted into > >>libata? > > > > > > My opinion is: yes but not now, final answer is of course left to Jeff. > > With the progress currently being made, I think my preference would be > to start collecting PATA drivers such this in my libata-dev queue. > > I would not send these PATA drivers upstream until the PATA to-do items > are complete (see other email), but it would be nice to have a central > location (both BK and patch on kernel.org) for developers and users to > mess with PATA support. I was going to start libata-pata-2.6 (from libata-dev-2.6) but this sounds even better :) and lets ignore /dev/hda vs /dev/sda issue completely for now in hope that udev will fix this for us etc. :) > My own comments: > > >> obj-$(CONFIG_SCSI_ATA_PIIX) += libata.o ata_piix.o > >>> +obj-$(CONFIG_SCSI_PATA_PDC_NEW) += libata.o pata_pdc202xx_new.o > > > > > > why not jus pata_pdc_new? or pata_pdc_27x? > > I would prefer to eliminate the "_new" suffix. Other than that I don't > really care. If I had written the driver, I would have named it > pata_pdc202xx I suppose. There is a high chance that somebody will also port pdc202xx_old driver to libata so pata_pdc202xx will be confusing.