Re: [PATCH] sym53c500_cs PCMCIA SCSI driver (new)

Christoph Hellwig
2004-04-17T09:45:35Z

On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 09:17:20AM -0500, Bob Tracy wrote:
> Given that the driver currently supports only PCMCIA implementations,
> I agree. My thinking was if someone comes up with a host adapter that
> isn't PCMCIA, the SYM53C500.c file is to the sym53c500_cs driver what
> the qlogicfas.c file is to the qlogic_cs driver, that is, core functions
> that could support multiple types of host adapters. The logic to
> handle the different types of adapters isn't there, and I don't know
> that it ever will be (else, it's probable that someone would have
> written the Linux driver long before now). However, after baring my
> ignorance to the world and saying I was unaware of non-PCMCIA
> implementations, I found a FreeBSD driver for the NCR 53c500. Never
> say "never," I guess... Your opinion counts for much, but you're the
> only person I've heard from. Is there a consensus I should forget
> about the non-PCMCIA cases?

I'd suggest to keep it as simple as you can for the time beeing. If we
ever find a user with a ISA or whatever variant he can split it out. And
such a split would work a little different from what you did now.

> > - the driver doesn't even try to deal with multiple HBAs
>
> Guilty as charged. Functionally, there's nothing in the driver I
> submitted that wasn't in the original. Suggestions welcome... Which
> of the existing PCMCIA SCSI drivers do a proper job of handling
> multiple host adapters in your opinion? I'll try to adapt that code to
> fit this driver. If I have to "roll my own" from scratch, I'm probably
> in over my head.

It looks like nsp_cs at least tries to :-)

> > - your detection logic could be streamlined a little, e.g. the request/release
> > resource mess
>
> I'll see what I can do.
>
> Although I touched on it above, by way of apology/explanation, the goal
> for the initial port was to replicate the functionality I already had in
> older kernel versions. It appears I faithfully replicated the
> deficiencies of the old driver as well :-). Again, thank you for the
> feedback.

Hey, you don't need to apologize. Anyt 2.6 driver is better than none and
your looks quite okay from the functional standpoint. We just need to have
a little higher bars for new drivers as we already have lots of maintaince
overhead for old and sloppy written drivers.