Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

This is now very similar to pata_platform.c, they both use
same platform data structure and same resources.

quoted

quoted

quoted

To achieve that, byte_lanes_swapping platform data variable
and platform specified iops removed from that driver. It's fine,
since those were never used anyway.

quoted

quoted

quoted

pata_platform and ide_platform are carrying same driver names,
to easily switch between these drivers, without need to touch
platform code.

quoted

quoted

Why? There's a drivers/ide/arm/ide_arm.c IDe driver that some platforms (not
in the mainline) hack to access, e.g., CF cards in true-IDE mode. About a
month ago I submitted a patch to arm-linux-kernel switching that 

quoted

  Wrong list to submit sych stuff, post to linux-ide.

Not entirely. The patch (or other patches in the series) would also touch 
ARM platforms in the mainline, currently using that driver. As I didn't 

    Was worth cross-posting to linux-ide anyway to get the IDE experts' 
feedback. ;-)

have a chance to test them due to lack of hardware, I posted on arm, 
asking if anyone would test those platforms for me.

   ... and they laughed at you? ;-)

quoted

quoted

driver to using platform-device. I got a reply, that it's not worth it now
that IDE is slowly becoming obsolete, and the pata_platform serves the
perpose perfectly well. I found this argument reasonable, I had the same

quoted

  Ignore such replies in the future. ;-)

It was largely in accordance with my own opinion, so, I chose to accept 
it:-)

    It's not clear why you decided to waste time on it then. :-)

quoted

quoted

doubt, just wanted to double-check. So, why do we now need a new legacy
(a/drivers/ide/legacy/ide_platform.c) driver when a "modern" driver exists?

quoted

  Good question (I know the answer but won't tell ;-).

You've been very cooperative, thanks.

    In fact, I also highly doubt that we need it.  What we'd need is an OF driver.

Thanks
Guennadi

WBR, Sergei