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

Guennadi Liakhovetski g.liakhovetski at gmx.de
Thu Jul 26 05:54:42 EST 2007

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:

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

> > 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 

> > 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.

Guennadi Liakhovetski

More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list