Alan Cox wrote:
>> using separate pata_acpi driver (we can definitely implement pata_acpi
>> using the helpers). It will reduce general confusion and allow
>> combining acpi cable detection with specialized device handling (e.g.
>> ACPI cable detection combined with ADMA command operation).
>
> Read the code Tejun, I did exactly that. pata_acpi is a driver which uses
> a nice clean set of helper methods I added to libata-acpi. pata_acpi
> itself knows nothing about ACPI other than calling into libata-acpi.
Actually, I have. I was thinking of higher level helpers. e.g.
pacpi_cable_detect() in libata-acpi.c such that sata_nv's cable_detect
can do.
int nv_cable_detect(struct ata_port *ap)
{
if (ck804) {
if (pacpi_cable_detect(ap) == 0)
return 0;
}
/* do original nv cable detection */
return rc;
}
So that it's more robust && we don't have to alternate between sata_nv,
pata_acpi depending on BIOS/kernel configuration, and possibly combine
other low level features with ACPI support.
--
tejun
-
To unsubscribe from this list: 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
