Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:05:23 -0400 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: [2.6.18-rc2-mm1] libata ate one PATA channel |
| |
Tejun Heo wrote: > I like 'registering both always and disabling one' approach for > partially stolen legacy devices. We can make ->hard_port_no do the job > as before, but IMHO it's error-prone and only useful for very limited > cases (first legacy port stolen). > > Jeff, what do you think?
The reason for hard_port_no's existence is the fact that is can sometimes differ from port_no, and we need to know the "real" port number, as opposed to the port number based on counting probed ports.
If you eliminate the need for hard_port_no, feel free to erase it.
Jeff
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |