Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:25:07 +0300 | From | Adrian Bunk <> | Subject | Re: [2.6 patch] ARM: always select HAVE_IDE |
| |
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 12:00:05PM +0100, Russell King wrote: > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 01:48:36PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 10:59:16AM +0100, Russell King wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 12:37:53PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > > Any objections against the patch below? > > > > > > Let's look at the rest of the situation surrounding HAVE_IDE first. > > > It's something of a mess: > > > > > > avr32, m68knommu, ppc, s390 and v850 do not have asm/ide.h > > > > > > avr32, m68knommu, ppc, v850 all set HAVE_IDE, arch/s390/Kconfig contains > > > no reference. > > > > > > avr32 supports PATA (which is IDE). > > > > > > Everything else provides an asm/ide.h and sets HAVE_IDE. > > > > > > So: > > > > > > Q1. Do avr32, m68knommu, ppc, v850 have IDE support or do they not? > > > > avr32 is fixed in 2.6.25 (no more HAVE_IDE) > > avr32 has ATA, so the only reason it doesn't actually use IDE is because > they're using libata entirely. This is NO different from the situation > on ARM - some machine classes use entirely libata, others use IDE, and > some others are trying to give up IDE in favour of libata.
You have a point that one might argue that avr32 should also select HAVE_IDE and get an asm/ide.h .
The main difference between avr32 and arm is that on arm there are a bunch of platforms that actually want to use drivers/ide/ at the moment, and the fine-grained select's we have at the moment don't bring any real gain.
I do actually not care much how this gets resolved (we could even ditch HAVE_IDE and provide asm/ide.h on all architectures) if there's general agreement that this is the way to go.
> Russell King
cu Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
| |