Re: [PATCH 4/5] pata: Update experimental tags

Sergei Shtylyov
2009-11-18T18:46:46Z

Hello.

Alan Cox wrote:

>>Having separate drivers wasn't the best decisions from the maintainability
>>point-of-view. It added needless complexity (different chips share the same

> It was most definitely a good decision, having maintained both sets of

Separating HPT36x was grounded enough decision but I can't say the same
of the separation of HPT3xxN.

> drivers at different times. It also makes it possible to do things the
> way highpoint does

Oh, don't remind me of that stupid code mostly not worth copying from...

>>PCI IDs which make detection across multiple drivers extremely painful) and
>>confusion (i.e. would you have guessed that HPT302 is supported by pata_hpt37x
>>while HPT302N by pata_hpt3x2n?).

How about HPT371N? ;-)

WBR, Sergei