From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935457AbXGZTus (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:50:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1765800AbXGZTuj (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:50:39 -0400 Received: from h155.mvista.com ([63.81.120.155]:37056 "EHLO imap.sh.mvista.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1765651AbXGZTui (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:50:38 -0400 Message-ID: <46A8FB86.2010907@ru.mvista.com> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:52:38 +0400 From: Sergei Shtylyov Organization: MontaVista Software Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803 X-Accept-Language: ru, en-us, en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Guennadi Liakhovetski Cc: Alan Cox , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] [IDE] Platform IDE driver (was: MMIO IDE driver) References: <20070725165318.5331.23795.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <20070725213925.2f25906c@the-village.bc.nu> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello. Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: >>>driver to using platform-device. I got a reply, that it's not worth it now >>>that IDE is slowly becoming obsolete, and the pata_platform serves the >>>perpose perfectly well. I found this argument reasonable, I had the same >>>doubt, just wanted to double-check. So, why do we now need a new legacy >>>(a/drivers/ide/legacy/ide_platform.c) driver when a "modern" driver >>>exists? >>We don't *need* it but some people still want to use old IDE and the >>author was willing to make it neatly compatible so that anything that >>works with the pata_platform should be able to use the ide_platform >>driver and vice versa. For the shorter term that can only be a good thing >>- arch code doesn't need to care about which driver is used, end users >>can pick and it doesn't end up adding new ties between code and old IDE. > Ok, thanks for the explanation Alan. So, there's no technical argument, > just "being nice to the users", and add a new driver, which we know we'll > have to remove soon, thus having to persuade its users, who by that time Define "soon". :-) > will get used to it and will not want to invest money into switching to > another one... Invest into what if the drivers are functionally identical? > Thanks > Guennadi MBR, Sergei