Re: [patch] New driver for Artop [Acard] controllers.

[Martin Dalecki <dalecki@evision-ventures.com>]

Uz.ytkownik Vojtech Pavlik napisa?:
> On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 04:29:39PM +0200, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> 
>>Hi!
>>
>>I have a very quick look over patch/driver... looks quite ok...
>>
>>But it doesn't support multiple controllers.
> 
> 
> Yes, right! That's a bug. Ahh, that's why all the drivers use the PCI
> device id over and over and over in the sources ...
> 
> 
>>We should add 'unsigned long private' to 'ata_channel struct' and
>>store index in the chipset table there.
> 
> 
> That'd be great. Though I prefer void*. Looks like "drive_data" is
> intended for that purpose. Martin: How about renaming this to "private"
> and a comment "solely for use by chip-specific drivers"?

Indeed strcut ata_channel should be virtualized this way.
However you can't reuse drive_data for this purpose - that
get's consumed by ide-scsi already if I remember correctly.
(Will have to double check.)

> 
> A private member in the ata_pci_device[] struct would be also very
> useful. Or is the "extra" field for that?

extra is it already for host chip driver specific flags.
pdc202xx is the only one using it. Indeed this should be moved
to a void *private as well.

But anyway principally I agree with all the suggestions.
BTW.> Please note that right now we have a bit
of dichotomy about where the actual driver
methods get stored, after I have generalized the registration
of the driver. This should be unified at some point in time as well.
(xxxproc and udma_xxx method famili is what I have in mind here.)

>>You can remove duplicate entries from module data table.
> 
> 
> I wonder how they got there ...

Already gone in nr. 70.

>>BTW: please don't touch pdc202xx.c I am playing with it...
> 
> 
> Ok, I won't. Send it to me for comments later.

You guys are reducing me more and more to a spinnlock for
synchronization ;-).