Re: [PATCH 1/2] [IDE] Platform IDE driver (was: MMIO IDE driver)

Sergei Shtylyov
2007-07-25T19:59:36Z

Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:

>>>>This is now very similar to pata_platform.c, they both use
>>>>same platform data structure and same resources.

>>>>To achieve that, byte_lanes_swapping platform data variable
>>>>and platform specified iops removed from that driver. It's fine,
>>>>since those were never used anyway.

>>>>pata_platform and ide_platform are carrying same driver names,
>>>>to easily switch between these drivers, without need to touch
>>>>platform code.

>>>Why? There's a drivers/ide/arm/ide_arm.c IDe driver that some platforms (not
>>>in the mainline) hack to access, e.g., CF cards in true-IDE mode. About a
>>>month ago I submitted a patch to arm-linux-kernel switching that

>> Wrong list to submit sych stuff, post to linux-ide.

> Not entirely. The patch (or other patches in the series) would also touch
> ARM platforms in the mainline, currently using that driver. As I didn't

Was worth cross-posting to linux-ide anyway to get the IDE experts'
feedback. ;-)

> have a chance to test them due to lack of hardware, I posted on arm,
> asking if anyone would test those platforms for me.

... and they laughed at you? ;-)

>>>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

>> Ignore such replies in the future. ;-)

> It was largely in accordance with my own opinion, so, I chose to accept
> it:-)

It's not clear why you decided to waste time on it then. :-)

>>>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?

>> Good question (I know the answer but won't tell ;-).

> You've been very cooperative, thanks.

In fact, I also highly doubt that we need it. What we'd need is an OF driver.

> Thanks
> Guennadi

WBR, Sergei