Re: [PATCH v3 5/9] add documentation for SATA nodes

On Friday 12 October 2007, Li Yang wrote:

+
+=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0sata@19000 {
+=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0compatible =3D "fsl,mpc8315=

=2Dsata";

+=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0reg =3D <19000 1000>;
+=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0interrupts =3D <2d 8>;
+=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0interrupt-parent =3D < &ipi=

c >;

+=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0phy-handle =3D < &serdes1 >;
+ =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0};

I believe we should really have a generic way to probe ATA
ports as long as they are compatible to the standard register
set, and use a generic of-ata driver for that. The two
questions arising there are:

1. Should there be a new device-type for ATA? Alternatively
   we would only look at the "compatible" property, maybe
   looking for a generic "ata" name.

2. How do we make sure the of-ata driver and the specific
   (e.g. sata_fsl) driver don't fight over the same devices?
   Would it be enough to reject all known specific devices
   in of_ata_probe?

	Arnd <><