On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > > > Wrong list to submit sych stuff, post to linux-ide. > > > Not entirely. The patch (or other patches in the series) would also touch > > ARM platforms in the mainline, currently using that driver. As I didn't > > Was worth cross-posting to linux-ide anyway to get the IDE experts' > feedback. ;-) linux-arm* mailing lists do not allow cross-posting. > > have a chance to test them due to lack of hardware, I posted on arm, asking > > if anyone would test those platforms for me. > > ... and they laughed at you? ;-) No, noone had that hardware either:-) Those who had preferred to forget about it, I guess. > > It was largely in accordance with my own opinion, so, I chose to accept > > it:-) > > It's not clear why you decided to waste time on it then. :-) Because I myself was in the situation where my local version of the driver was filling with #ifdef's supporting all possible variations of our hardware, so, I switched it to platform_driver to clean up that mess. And then decided to ask if others would consider it useful. Just in case. I hoped they wouldn't. > > > > doubt, just wanted to double-check. So, why do we now need a new legacy > > > > (a/drivers/ide/legacy/ide_platform.c) driver when a "modern" driver > > > > exists? > > > > Good question (I know the answer but won't tell ;-). > > > You've been very cooperative, thanks. > > In fact, I also highly doubt that we need it. What we'd need is an OF > driver. Great, thanks. Now we have to find out why Alan acked it (added to cc). Thanks Guennadi --- Guennadi Liakhovetski - 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
