Re: libata: why do we need to define ATA_ENABLE_PATA instead of a CONFIG option?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 12:18:58AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote:
> >Currently, we can use the piix ide driver for Intel ICH5 IDE controllers, 
> >or
> >use ata_piix (libata) by #defining ATA_ENABLE_PATA manually at
> >inclulde/linux/libata.h.  Why not have a CONFIG option to enable libata 
> >for such
> >drivers instead of a #define in the code? I was wondering if there is any
> >reason it is done this way.
> 
> ATA_ENABLE_PATA is there because PATA was highly experimental for a 
> while, and only developers and power users should be enabling it.

Is ata_piix still considered higly experimental? Its been around for
sometime I guess. Would this be time for a CONFIG option (atleast with
'experimental')?

Thanks,
Kiran
-
: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux RAID]     [Git]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Linux Newbie]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux