hi, >>>>> AT91SAM9. > >>>> Ok, currently only SAM9 can be used with driver. However I think adding >>>> support to AT91RM9200 to this driver will be not much effort. > >>> Can you answer the simple question: why we should try to support two >>> incompatible chips with a single driver? Because the driver name will be >>> shorter? :-) > >> Very funny. I think patch adding RM9200 support to this driver will have >> less >> than 50 lines changeset, whereas writing new driver would be about 500 >> lines. > > This approach is so broken-minded that I'm just out words to argue any > more. This driver should also work on the Atmel AT91CAP9 and AT572D940HF processors. So I see no valid reason why the driver cannot be called at91_ide. Regards, Andrew Victor -- 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
