Andrew Victor wrote:
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.
I've already said: call it whatever you want. Just don't try to add support for an incompatible AT91 SMC.
Regards, Andrew Victor
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
