Re: [PATCH] Add hook for custom xfer function in PATA Platform driver

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hello.

Alan Cox wrote:

As I said, we *can't* implement the driver methods at the board level. Especially if they involve messing with timings -- that's the point where the ATA driver stops being generic, like pata_platform, and there arises a need for the dedicated driver. Also, your patch would bring in disparity with the ide-platfrom driver (which should be interchangeable with pata_platfrom). For me, the need of a separate driver is clear now, so I'll remain opposed to your patch. Of course, the maintainer (Jeff Garzik) will decide but if I could veto this patch I would.

I don't think ide-platform matters in this case.

You've just supported a patch restoring feature parity between pata_platform and ide-platfrom WRT IRQ flags. ;-)

You can certainly add
the same support to the old ide_platform driver, but the old code can't
be allowed to block progress with newer stuff. It's also trivial to add

	if (we have an xfer method) {
		printk("Oh poo");
		return -ENODEV;
	}

to the IDE one so it simply refuses to bind to more featureful
implementatins.

Yes, but this needs to be *done* too, preferrably by the author of the original patch and simultaneously with it. We can't accept a single patch that only touches pata_platform.

I also don't see a problem with the transfer function needing to do
arbitration, byte stuffing and other magic - that's quite common on
embedded weirdnesses.

  Agreed.

The point it ceases to make sense is where you need to do mode setting.
If the GPIO frobbing is managing the platform bus requirements then it
makes sense as a platform function. If it's going to grow into full ATA
set xfer mode support it probably turns into a new driver at some point.

In this case I do suspect we have fully programmable bus timings, and hence should be able to do mode setting. Partly because of that, I'd still like to see this case handled with a separate driver.

Either way it makes sense to support overriding the data_xfer operation,
and we've done something analogous for years with 8250 serial and it has
been a *huge* success and saved us having about thirty similar
platform serial drivers.

Well, with 8250 we still don't allow for overriding things at the board level, via the platform data callbacks.

Alan

WBR, 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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux RAID]     [Git]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Linux Newbie]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux