Tejun Heo wrote:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
NAK, I definitely don't want to closely associate phy and device
parameters, because they are fundamentally two different things.
We program and address PHYs, so perhaps a sata_phy struct is needed.
Port multipliers also get interesting because we need to use ATA-ish
commands to talk to the PM phys. Perhaps a struct ata_port_mult
inside ata_device is warranted, where one stores an array of sata_phy
structs, and other PM-specific details.
Hmmm... Yeah I also thought about extracting out PHY related information
out such that PATAs share them, SATA and PM have their own maybe marked
to indicate how they are connected. But that looked like going too far
especially because we don't have PM support yet. So, sticking it into
dev was sorta middle-ground.
How about putting it into ata_port around ap->cbl? This fits the current
model better and should work the same.
Sounds good to me.
Jeff
-
: 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
