Hello, Mikael Pettersson wrote: > I don't object to the new init model in principle. > My only reservation here is that you are folding what > logically are separate changes into one big change to > sata_promise, and that makes the patch more difficult > to review (and regressions more difficult to trace). > > I would like to do the SATA/PATA splitup into distinct > operations as a separate first step, with you doing the > new init model adaptation in a followup step. I don't think SATA/PATA splitup is so easy if you don't have new init model. That's why the driver looks the way it does now. Maybe the other way around is easier - convert to new init model first then split SATA/PATA. I'll try to split the patch. > Also, at least the error handler changes would seem to > be in conflict with Alan's cable type changes. Yeap, the two patchsets are bound to conflict, but they shouldn't be difficult to merge. If Jeff merges cable patchset first, I'll update my patchset against the new #upstream, if it happens the other way around, Alan will, so no biggy. Thanks. -- 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
