[lkml]   [2011]   [Feb]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 05/20] pata_efar: always program master_data before slave_data
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Alan Cox <> wrote:
>> I was thinking about re-doing ata_piix part in a way that we could
>> merge it now by adding support for older PIIX-alikes to ata_piix and
>> making it enabled only if "all_piixalikes" module parameter is
>> specified.   This way older drivers would be left untouched for now
>> and we can easily get in-tree testing for a new code.  Does it sound
>> as a viable alternative?
> That is the bit to me that makes the least sense. Each of the devices in
> question is found only in the chipset so they can never be in combination
> on a board (except multiple PIIX4 which is already covered)
> Merging them makes it more likely stuff breaks and increases memory usage
> - its a lose/lose situation.

Each device is very similar to other one, so keeping 6 drivers for the
(almost) same stuff makes a little sense from the long-term
maintainability POV, It is a question of different trade-offs since
on the other side of equation we have 5 drivers less, 1400 LOCs less,
no risk of losing bugfixes and features (which is true already w/
pata_rdc lacking locking fixes + Power Management and pata_oldpiix
lacking parallel scanning feature).

As for increased memory usage -- we are talking here only about 10-20k
more. If it really is a problem maybe ata_piix can be redesigned into
ata_generic-style manner so with the help of existing config options
we can keep code size / memory usage on a existing level.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2011-02-23 09:47    [W:0.064 / U:35.000 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site