From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760828AbYDWCTF (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:19:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758877AbYDWCSp (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:18:45 -0400 Received: from po-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.252.156]:43566 "EHLO po-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755330AbYDWCSn (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:18:43 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=YGmPmdCK2lKGKrEILQLqd5YvM7rqLbqL5p1WPINfZsD1m6jvay+Giq871CtQy998O+tbZUbV3x1LxhnPMfTvCs1ZwwnRvUykRyzfuEBN44MQnFqWTKcky2ScO6EgV+I77OZ5yxnF4MpbmIpqE25K02yvz2D03D2kXjxQhPFiAw8= Message-ID: <480E9C15.6080103@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:16:53 +0900 From: Tejun Heo User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080226) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sergei Shtylyov CC: Mark Lord , Jeff Garzik , Adrian Bunk , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, Alan Cox Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] select ATA_SFF References: <20080421213147.GH2633@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <480DE3C4.5@ru.mvista.com> <480DE6F5.8060403@gmail.com> <480DE9E8.2070809@ru.mvista.com> <480DEB1F.5060500@gmail.com> <480DF7B7.9030000@rtr.ca> <480DF876.7070800@gmail.com> <480DF9BD.1080104@rtr.ca> <480DFE76.8000809@ru.mvista.com> <480E345D.9090406@ru.mvista.com> In-Reply-To: <480E345D.9090406@ru.mvista.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > Hello, I wrote: > >>> I suppose. If we were needlessly pedantic, then perhaps >>> the libata-bmdma.c should be renamed to libata-sff.c, > > It *was* renamed to libata-sff.c, back in 2006. :-) > >>> and the libata-sff.c should be renamed libata-tf.c > > Not before splitting SFF-8038i stuff from it. > >>> But there's probably been a document or two since then, >>> where the SFF folks have documented the TF interfaces, too. > >> Don't know, at least I haven't encountered such spec. Unless you >> mean SFF-8020i (ATAPI CD-ROM spec). > > I've looked thru the list of their spec. and it didn't seem to have > any about taskfile specifically. SFF-8070 (ATAPI CD-RW) refers to > ATA/PI-4 for that matter. Aik... We can do s/sff/tf/ and leave bmdma alone to avoid even more confusion but sff has meant tf base interface for quite some time now in libata and I think it'll be better to remember that sff is the new tf. Sorry about the mess. Thanks. -- tejun