Hi Finn,
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 1:05 AM Finn Thain <fthain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Sep 2020, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 2:23 AM Finn Thain <fthain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > How does the driver know not to use the special port_ops after
> > > > this change?
> > > >
> > >
> > > The driver always uses the special port_ops after this change because it
> > > no longer handles the MAC_IDE_BABOON case. That case is handled by either
> >
> > non-MAC_IDE_BABOON case?
> >
> > > drivers/ata/pata_platform.c or drivers/ide/ide_platform.c, depending on
> > > .config.
> >
> > Ideally, we do need to differentiate, right?
> >
>
> Sorry, I'm lost.
>
> The commit log explains that the macide driver is only intended to support
> two of the three variants, because the generic drivers are already able to
> support the third variant (Baboon). Stan confirmed this on his PB 190.
>
> But, IIUC, you seem to want macide to continue to support all three
> variants (?) The existing code to implement that has an old bug that
> reassigns d.port_ops when it is const. IMO, the const is correct because
> macide should concern itself with mac hardware quirks and should not try
> to mimic a generic driver by setting d.port_ops = NULL. Does that make
> sense?
Sorry, I completely missed that the Baboon case registers a "pata_platform"
device instead of a "macide" device. Hence please ignore my comments
related to that. Sorry for the noise.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
