Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:09:53 +0100 | From | Russell King <> | Subject | Removal of BAST IDE driver |
| |
Referring to this commit in mainline:
commit ac1623625c5818bbdf5c68973098ba386ba7a004 Author: Ben Dooks <ben-linux@fluff.org> Date: Fri Jun 20 20:53:35 2008 +0200
BAST: Remove old IDE driver
Remove the old BAST IDE driver, as we are now using the platform-pata support.
Signed-off-by: Ben Dooks <ben-linux@fluff.org> Cc: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>
I've recieved a couple of patches for the next merge window from Ben which say:
> Subject: [patch 20/32] BAST/VR1000: Move to using ata_platform (libata) > > Use the pata_platform driver to provide the IDE port > drivers on the Simntec BAST and Thorcom VR1000 machines > as a precursor to removing drivers/ide/arm/bast-ide.c
And when I queried Ben on this, he responded thusly:
09:58 < fluffy> yes, bart was rather quicker at applying the removal patch 09:59 < fluffy> i send 'for next kernel release' and he shoved it in his -rc6 sub
So, quite clearly we have a regression - we have platforms which have lost IDE support.
There's two ways to resolve this. Either the above commit can be reverted restoring old IDE support, or the patches to add libata support for these platforms can be submitted. Given where we are in the -rc, I think reverting the bad commit would be more sensible.
The question also has to be asked - what are maintainers doing putting driver removals into -rc kernels? Surely they are only merge-window candidates?
-- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of:
| |