Hi,

On Thursday 26 July 2007, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Alan Cox wrote:

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 
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?

We don't *need* it but some people still want to use old IDE and the
author was willing to make it neatly compatible so that anything that
works with the pata_platform should be able to use the ide_platform
driver and vice versa. For the shorter term that can only be a good thing
- arch code doesn't need to care about which driver is used, end users
can pick and it doesn't end up adding new ties between code and old IDE.

Ok, thanks for the explanation Alan. So, there's no technical argument, 
just "being nice to the users", and add a new driver, which we know we'll 

There are some rough edges (especially older and/or rare hardware,
this goes for both cotrollers and devices) that SCSI/libata don't
handle and IDE subsystem do.

have to remove soon, thus having to persuade its users, who by that time 

Well, we've been hearing "soon" for two years now...

will get used to it and will not want to invest money into switching to 
another one...

PS wrt ide_arm.c changes, you really should have cc:ed the author... ;)

Thanks,
Bart