Re: [2.6.18-rc2-mm1] libata ate one PATA channel

[Jeff Garzik]

Tejun Heo wrote:
> I like 'registering both always and disabling one' approach for 
> partially stolen legacy devices.  We can make ->hard_port_no do the job 
> as before, but IMHO it's error-prone and only useful for very limited 
> cases (first legacy port stolen).
>
> Jeff, what do you think?


The reason for hard_port_no's existence is the fact that is can 
sometimes differ from port_no, and we need to know the "real" port 
number, as opposed to the port number based on counting probed ports.

If you eliminate the need for hard_port_no, feel free to erase it.

	Jeff


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/