Hello, I wrote:
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/board.h
b/arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/board.h
index fb51f0e..6674b9b 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/board.h
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/board.h
@@ -59,6 +59,18 @@ struct at91_cf_data {
};
extern void __init at91_add_device_cf(struct at91_cf_data *data);
+ /* Compact Flash True IDE mode */
+struct at91_ide_data {
+ u8 irq_pin; /* the same meaning as for CF */
I again have to express my dislike about not passing IRQ the usual
way. Also, see my comments to the platform code.
Yes, I know, I don't like to argue. Only reasoning to use platform irq
resource
seams to be: "because other drivers do". However we have exception -
at91_cf
also use board->irq_pin, so maybe this driver could also do ?
Then why have the memory resource when we can calculate it from the
chip select? (I'm not asking you to do that, since the platfrom device
resources are user-visible thru /proc/iomem -- even if the driver is not
enabled.)
Oh, I forgot that it's ARM with its #ifdef hell. :-D
Then they're only visible when the driver is enabled.
MBR, Sergei
--
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
