Messages in this thread | | | From | Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <> | Subject | Re: arm-lh7a40x IDE support in 2.6.6 | Date | Fri, 14 May 2004 23:23:19 +0200 |
| |
On Friday 14 of May 2004 21:47, Marc Singer wrote:
> > [ you used 'struct ide_hwif_s' in arch-lh7a40x/ide.h to workaround this > > 8) ]
struct hwif_s actually
> Copied from elsewhere.
superio.h, superio.c
EEK, added to TODO
> Listen. It is not my intention to be clever. All I want to do is get > things working and to not break other people's code. I'm certain that > most people are working with the same assumptions. Aside from some > naive snippets I've see promulgated, the bulk of the kernel work I've > see is sane given limited information. Certainly, once one > understands a sybsystem completely then the quality rises. I hope > you'll admit that the IDE code is overly intricate.
With changes like this nobody will ever be able to understand IDE subsystem completely. ;-)
> > - you are setting IDE_NO_IRQ in ide_init_hwif_ports() which is used > > in many places in generic IDE code - anybody wanting to understand > > interactions with your code + generic code will have serious > > problems (especially if knows _nothing_ about lpd7a40x) > > I don't know what you mean. I grep for that constant and found it > nowhere except for ide-io.c and in my code. It doesn't take much to > find the references.
I'm talking about ide_init_hwif_ports() function.
> What is it that you want changed? > > > - hwif->mmio is set to 2 but resource handling is missed > > Can you be more specific? Did you notice the comment? I didn't know > what it was for, but I set it because I thought that that was the > right way to go. > > Are you talking about reserving the address space? At the moment,
Yes.
> this is done in the arch setup. I can certainly move it to the IDE > driver.
OK
> > > The OUTB breaks my interface because I don't really have byte-level > > > access to the resgisters. So, is selectproc a pre-select procedure or > > > should it be a substitute? > > > > pre-select but you can change it to be substitute if you need > > (just remember to update all users if you decide to do this) > > I'll have to search the kernel to see what uses it. Maybe the better > way would be to define a new select proc that *is* a substitute.
Nope.
> > IMO it is better to fix it correctly than to do hacks like this > > in lpd7a40x_ide_outb() (which is minor performance hit btw) > > Of course. > > > > Anyway, that is what I did in a nutshell. I plan to get back to this > > > in a week or so. Since Russell King already integrated the lh7a40x > > > code into the kernel, this stuff should be easy to test. > > > > That's what I'm talking about - it shouldn't have been integrated. :-) > > I think we are talking about two things here. I agree that the > ide-lpd7a400 code should not have been integrated. However, the rest
OK
> of the core code is fine. It is that core code that is necessary to > make the test possible.
Stuff in arch-lh7a40x/ide.h is really a driver code but abuses subsystem code instead - that's my complain.
OK, lets move things forward and just fix it.
Cheers.
- 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/
| |