Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/16] PATA driver for Celleb

From: Christoph Hellwig <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 07:48:08 +0100

On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 10:55:00AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > This needs to go to linux-ide for review.  But IIRC new PATA drivers
> > should use libata these days, not the old ide layer.
> 
> While I agree, there are still issues with libata vs. devices that needs
> special IOps. libata allows you to override writing/reading taskfiles,
> but there are cases, specifically in the EH/bus reset code, where it
> still assumes the standard taskfile byte access format for a few things
> and while it's possible to "override" these, that means re-implementing
> a lot of logic in the driver.
> 
> I need to sort that out with Jeff one of these days as there is a
> similar problem with the mpc52xx IDE driver.
> 
> In the meantime, I reckon it's ok to have a drivers/ide driver for
> 2.6.20

I don't know.  And I think we can't make the judgement here, we should
leave it to the IDE maintainers to a proper review and make this
decision, that's why this patch needs to go to linux-ide ASAP.