Re: [2.6.18-rc2-mm1] libata ate one PATA channel

Jeff Garzik
2006-07-31T19:05:33Z

Tejun Heo wrote:
> I like 'registering both always and disabling one' approach for
> partially stolen legacy devices. We can make ->hard_port_no do the job
> as before, but IMHO it's error-prone and only useful for very limited
> cases (first legacy port stolen).
>
> Jeff, what do you think?

The reason for hard_port_no's existence is the fact that is can
sometimes differ from port_no, and we need to know the "real" port
number, as opposed to the port number based on counting probed ports.

If you eliminate the need for hard_port_no, feel free to erase it.

Jeff