Jeff Garzik wrote: > Tejun Heo wrote: >> Whether a controller needs IDE or SATA ACPI hierarchy is determined by >> the programming interface of the controller not by whether the >> controller is SATA or PATA, or it supports slave device or not. This >> patch adds ATA_FLAG_ACPI_SATA port flags which tells libata-acpi that >> the port needs SATA ACPI nodes, and sets the flag for ahci and >> sata_sil24. >> >> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <htejun@xxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> drivers/ata/ahci.c | 3 ++- >> drivers/ata/libata-acpi.c | 10 +++++----- >> drivers/ata/sata_sil24.c | 3 ++- >> include/linux/libata.h | 1 + >> 4 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > I don't think the situation is as static as a compiled-in driver flag > implies. And I'm not really convinced a driver flag is needed, or wanted. > > If anything, the only flag we /may/ need could be a > ATA_FLAG_NEVER_EVER_DO_ACPI_FOR_THIS_CONTROLLER. Can you please elaborate a bit? As I wrote while talking with Alan, I really don't know how to do auto-matching. Personally, I don't think there is a way to do that safely but will be happy to implement it if someone can enlighten me. :-) -- tejun - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
