Hi, On Thursday 26 July 2007, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Alan Cox wrote: > > > > driver to using platform-device. I got a reply, that it's not worth it now > > > that IDE is slowly becoming obsolete, and the pata_platform serves the > > > perpose perfectly well. I found this argument reasonable, I had the same > > > 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? > > > > We don't *need* it but some people still want to use old IDE and the > > author was willing to make it neatly compatible so that anything that > > works with the pata_platform should be able to use the ide_platform > > driver and vice versa. For the shorter term that can only be a good thing > > - arch code doesn't need to care about which driver is used, end users > > can pick and it doesn't end up adding new ties between code and old IDE. > > Ok, thanks for the explanation Alan. So, there's no technical argument, > just "being nice to the users", and add a new driver, which we know we'll There are some rough edges (especially older and/or rare hardware, this goes for both cotrollers and devices) that SCSI/libata don't handle and IDE subsystem do. > have to remove soon, thus having to persuade its users, who by that time Well, we've been hearing "soon" for two years now... > will get used to it and will not want to invest money into switching to > another one... PS wrt ide_arm.c changes, you really should have cc:ed the author... ;) Thanks, Bart - 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
