From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from imap.sh.mvista.com (unknown [63.81.120.155]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE1B2DDF5A for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:04:50 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <474FEE5D.2030905@ru.mvista.com> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:05:01 +0300 From: Sergei Shtylyov MIME-Version: 1.0 To: avorontsov@ru.mvista.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] [libata] pata_of_platform: OF-Platform PATA device driver References: <20071127153708.GA12490@localhost.localdomain> <20071127153908.GB14183@localhost.localdomain> <20071127212222.GB10829@lixom.net> <200711272233.00456.arnd@arndb.de> <20071128154904.GA20722@localhost.localdomain> <474D9327.9020305@ru.mvista.com> <20071129005440.GA2235@zarina> <474FE332.8080103@ru.mvista.com> <20071130105849.GA10840@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20071130105849.GA10840@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Cc: Olof Johansson , cbou@mail.ru, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Anton Vorontsov wrote: >>>Remaining question: any preferred name for that property? pio-mode okay? >>>It's assuming that PIO6 capable bus supports PIO0 as well, thus no mask. >> I've already suggested "generic". A name "simple" also comes to my mind. > You've misread my question. I didn't ask about driver name, but pio-mode > property. I'm OK with "pio-mode" then. Just don't think it makes much sense in the context of this driver which has no provision for the programming the mode timings (and if there were some provision, the *generic* platform driver couldn't handle it anyway). > As for the driver name, it doesn't matter at all, as I've said already: > it's Linux specific anyway, and another compatible properties could be > added at any time, to a device tree and/or to the OF driver itself (if > some real OpenFirmware will pass some meaningful compatible property > that we'll have to match in that driver). > "generic" name is also bad one, it's confusing wrt ata_generic.c > driver (PCI). The "compatible" property doesn't have to contain the driver name, so there should be no confusion with the driver names. It's just different name spaces. :-) > "simple" name doesn't tell anything at all. So, I'd rather stick with -platform name. Well, those two should be "generic-ata" and "simple-ata" of course. And it *does* tell that the driver just provides taskfile control, without the transfer timing control and other fancy stuff... > Thanks, MBR, Sergei