From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763673AbYD0Tya (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Apr 2008 15:54:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1761642AbYD0TyN (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Apr 2008 15:54:13 -0400 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.159]:25296 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752896AbYD0TyM (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Apr 2008 15:54:12 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-disposition:message-id:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=TvnWFbMXlus/k5ksFjEJUxqXXLqFA0T9EXBjqS+cQ/elzy/Dp4tmBNscg+qDBbZ8qJcOuuL3dczHysEgR76oxj2/KPrZMQbaG+/nh6rV8gAP5iKPUKG9ZHHWp9V7bLZWeXP1cTm83ZnRVmgrhNZrNHzWbumpjK3DG99Rjl0thdw= From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz To: Adrian Bunk Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] ARM: always select HAVE_IDE Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 20:32:44 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: Sam Ravnborg , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pcmcia@lists.infradead.org References: <20080414141659.GF6695@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <20080417110005.GE1449@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20080417132507.GA9314@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> In-Reply-To: <20080417132507.GA9314@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200804272032.44273.bzolnier@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 17 April 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 12:00:05PM +0100, Russell King wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 01:48:36PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 10:59:16AM +0100, Russell King wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 12:37:53PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > > > Any objections against the patch below? > > > > > > > > Let's look at the rest of the situation surrounding HAVE_IDE first. > > > > It's something of a mess: > > > > > > > > avr32, m68knommu, ppc, s390 and v850 do not have asm/ide.h > > > > > > > > avr32, m68knommu, ppc, v850 all set HAVE_IDE, arch/s390/Kconfig contains > > > > no reference. > > > > > > > > avr32 supports PATA (which is IDE). > > > > > > > > Everything else provides an asm/ide.h and sets HAVE_IDE. > > > > > > > > So: > > > > > > > > Q1. Do avr32, m68knommu, ppc, v850 have IDE support or do they not? > > > > > > avr32 is fixed in 2.6.25 (no more HAVE_IDE) > > > > avr32 has ATA, so the only reason it doesn't actually use IDE is because > > they're using libata entirely. This is NO different from the situation > > on ARM - some machine classes use entirely libata, others use IDE, and > > some others are trying to give up IDE in favour of libata. > > You have a point that one might argue that avr32 should also select > HAVE_IDE and get an asm/ide.h . > > The main difference between avr32 and arm is that on arm there are a > bunch of platforms that actually want to use drivers/ide/ at the moment, > and the fine-grained select's we have at the moment don't bring any real > gain. > > I do actually not care much how this gets resolved (we could even > ditch HAVE_IDE and provide asm/ide.h on all architectures) if there's > general agreement that this is the way to go. Seems like a way to go now that all crazy IDE core code vs arch code inter-dependiences have been fixed (the ideal solution would be to ditch asm/ide.h completely but this requires some more time/work). Thanks, Bart