On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 01:07:05PM -0600, Erik Andersen wrote:
> On Tue Jul 22, 2003 at 02:54:43PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Bart, Alan, and I have been looking at this. It uses the ancient CAM
> > model, that we don't really want to merge directly in the kernel. It's
> > very close to the libata model, from the user perspective, so life is
> > good.
>
> I was reading over your libata driver yesterday. Certainly a lot
> cleaner than the cam stuff IMHO. Given the info made available
> via the Promise driver, I expect that I could get an initial
> libata host adaptor driver hacked together in short order. After
> all, the Intel one is just 400 lines. So unless you (or anyone
> else) have already started or would prefer to do the honors,
> I'll try to hack something together this evening,
Shoot, that would be great ;-)
For the future, libata will need a tad bit more queueing than is
currently supported. But there is enough support in libata right now to
handle basic Promise support.
On a legal note, I would prefer that completely new drivers (i.e. no
copied code from other sources) be licensing in the same way as
libata.c. Maintainer's preference in the end, of course, but I would
like to strongly encourage following libata.c's example ;-)
I have a TX2 board, too, so I can test your stuff as well.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 23 2003 - 22:00:47 EST