libata: why do we need to define ATA_ENABLE_PATA instead of a CONFIG option?

DISCUSSION Ravikiran G Thirumalai 2 participants 3 messages Mar 7, 2006 libata

Share & tools

Ravikiran G Thirumalai

author

2006-03-07 01:04 UTC #0 lore raw

Currently, we can use the piix ide driver for Intel ICH5 IDE controllers, or use ata_piix (libata) by #defining ATA_ENABLE_PATA manually at inclulde/linux/libata.h. Why not have a CONFIG option to enable libata for such drivers instead of a #define in the code? I was wondering if there is any reason it is done this way.

Thanks,
Kiran

Jeff Garzik

2006-03-07 05:19 UTC #1 lore raw

Quoted 5 lines · Ravikiran G Thirumalai

Currently, we can use the piix ide driver for Intel ICH5 IDE controllers, or use ata_piix (libata) by #defining ATA_ENABLE_PATA manually at inclulde/linux/libata.h. Why not have a CONFIG option to enable libata for such drivers instead of a #define in the code? I was wondering if there is any reason it is done this way.

ATA_ENABLE_PATA is there because PATA was highly experimental for a while, and only developers and power users should be enabling it.

Jeff

Ravikiran G Thirumalai

author

2006-03-07 05:59 UTC #2 lore raw

Quoted 11 lines · Jeff Garzik

Quoted 7 lines · Ravikiran G Thirumalai
Currently, we can use the piix ide driver for Intel ICH5 IDE controllers, or
use ata_piix (libata) by #defining ATA_ENABLE_PATA manually at inclulde/linux/libata.h. Why not have a CONFIG option to enable libata for such
drivers instead of a #define in the code? I was wondering if there is any reason it is done this way.
ATA_ENABLE_PATA is there because PATA was highly experimental for a while, and only developers and power users should be enabling it.

Is ata_piix still considered higly experimental? Its been around for sometime I guess. Would this be time for a CONFIG option (atleast with 'experimental')?

Thanks,
Kiran