schedule BLK_DEV_IDE_SATA for removal
Subsystems (2)
RFC PATCH 1/1 schedule BLK_DEV_IDE_SATA for removal
Users should use the libata based drivers for SATA drives.
---
Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt renamed from Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt.old +7 -0
@@ -347,3 +347,10 @@ Who: Jean Delvare <[email protected]> --------------------------- + +What: CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDE_SATA +When: December 2007 +Why: users should use the libata based drivers for SATA +Who: Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> + +---------------------------
Quoted 1 line · Adrian Bunk
Users should use the libata based drivers for SATA drives.
NAK. Not all IDE drivers are converted yet. Not even all the relatively common ones.
Signature · 1 line
dwmw2
Quoted 5 lines · David Woodhouse
Quoted 1 line · Adrian Bunk
Users should use the libata based drivers for SATA drives.
NAK. Not all IDE drivers are converted yet. Not even all the relatively common ones.
Ignore me. I thought you were trying to deprecate BLK_DEV_IDE. Sorry.
/me wanders off in search of more caffeine....
Signature · 1 line
dwmw2
Quoted 5 lines · On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:39:45 +0800 David Woodhouse <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 1 line · Adrian Bunk
Users should use the libata based drivers for SATA drives.
NAK. Not all IDE drivers are converted yet. Not even all the relatively common ones.
All the common SATA ones are. Just the PowerPC people are falling behind. Really we should obsolete powerpc instead ;)
Alan
Quoted 11 lines · Alan Cox
Quoted 5 lines · On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:39:45 +0800 David Woodhouse <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 1 line · Adrian Bunk
Users should use the libata based drivers for SATA drives.
NAK. Not all IDE drivers are converted yet. Not even all the relatively common ones.
All the common SATA ones are. Just the PowerPC people are falling behind. Really we should obsolete powerpc instead ;)
What SATA drive uses a non-libata driver on PowerPC? In fact the sata_svw driver used for SATA drives on G5s was one of the early libata drivers. Or are you talking about PATA?
Paul.
Quoted 7 lines · Paul Mackerras
Quoted 5 lines · Alan Cox
Quoted 2 lines · On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:39:45 +0800 David Woodhouse <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 1 line · Adrian Bunk
Users should use the libata based drivers for SATA drives.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 2 lines
NAK. Not all IDE drivers are converted yet. Not even all the relatively common ones.
All the common SATA ones are. Just the PowerPC people are falling behind. Really we should obsolete powerpc instead ;)
What SATA drive uses a non-libata driver on PowerPC? In fact the
sata_svwdriver used for SATA drives on G5s was one of the early libata drivers. Or are you talking about PATA?
This entire thread is confused :)
Going back to $subject, it is relevant only to the scant few old-IDE drivers that do indeed successfully probe and talk to SATA drives, from SATA controllers.
The vast majority have always used libata for SATA, but another option did indeed exist before libata appeared, for a few controllers.
Alan was just having a bit of fun at dwmw2's expense, since we do indeed want to see libata drivers for PowerPC PATA as well :)
Jeff
Quoted 8 lines · On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 01:52:11 +0200 Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
Users should use the libata based drivers for SATA drives.
Signed-off-by Adrian Bunk <[email protected]>---
Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt line 356
Quoted 10 lines
Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt renamed from Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt.old +7
-0@@ -347,3 +347,10 @@ Who: Jean Delvare <[email protected]> --------------------------- + +What: CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDE_SATA +When: December 2007 +Why: users should use the libata based drivers for SATA +Who: Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> + +---------------------------
NAK this for now
For the standard SATA controllers it is probably true now and will definitely be true by December 2007 but there is lots of stuff out there which uses SATA/PATA bridges on older PATA controllers such as the VIA and HPT controllers. While support for them varies between rock solid (VIA) and passable (HPT), I don't think its yet time to bump those people towards libata forcibly at all.
About the only thing this would meaningfully obsolete would be ide/pci/siimage.c for SI3112 and some PCI identifiers from ide/pci/piix.c.