On 06/10/2010 04:56 AM, Ben Dooks wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 04:52:07AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
On 06/10/2010 03:50 AM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
From: Abhilash Kesavan<a.kesavan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Adds support for the Samsung PATA controller. This driver is based on the
Libata subsystem and references the earlier patches sent for IDE subsystem.
Signed-off-by: Abhilash Kesavan<a.kesavan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim<kgene.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Changes since v2:
- Changed the DRV_NAME to pata_samsung_cf
- Used msleep instead of mdelay
drivers/ata/Makefile | 1 +
drivers/ata/pata_samsung_cf.c | 608 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 618 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 drivers/ata/pata_samsung_cf.c
Acked-by: Jeff Garzik<jgarzik@xxxxxxxxxx>
I presume you'll send this upstream via the appropriate ARM tree.
It depends on whether Linus un-declares his current suspensio nof
ARM based work. The machine updtaes should go via the samsung tree
but whether to send the driver that was is another matter (I prefer
to have drivers go via the driver's tree to avoid clashes in
Makefile and Kconfig).
I don't mind merging it, but usually platform drivers do not build
and/or work without additional platform glue. Isn't that the case here?
PS, what's your policy on -rc inclusion of completely new code
such as this?
New drivers are fine (which is standard policy outside libata, too), as
they will not cause regressions, and will enable new users.
Jeff
--
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
