Re: [PATCH RFC 0/12] ahci: Add support for non-PCI devices

From: Anton Vorontsov
Date: Wed Mar 03 2010 - 08:15:20 EST

On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 04:34:39PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> As demonstrated in libata-dev.git#libahci, I think the best route is
> to move generic code into libahci. In #libahci you will see
> libahci -> common code
> ahci -> standard PCI driver, req's libahci
> mv-ahci -> Marvell AHCI driver, req's libahci
> acard-ahci -> ACard AHCI driver, req's libahci
> and to this we could easily add
> platform-ahci -> platform AHCI driver, req's libahci
> WARNING: #libahci should not be used directly, it is meant for
> illustration purposes only. It has not been properly updated for
> several recent ahci.c changes upstream, which implies that the
> trivial-and-obvious task of moving generic code from ahci.c to
> libahci.c must be redone.

Well, do I understand correctly that the only issue is the
file names? I.e. in my patches, instead of keeping the library
code in ahci.c, I should move the library code into libahci.c,
and keep the PCI code in ahci.c?

Because, as far as I can see, the result of my patches is pretty
much the same as in #libahci, except the file names and more
things that can be reused (i.e. ahci_sht, ahci_ops -- I kept
all this in the library part, since we want to share it with
the platform driver).

Also, I don't export function that aren't currently used
by PCI or platform drivers, but in #libahci there are all
exported. Should I keep it my way, or should I export all the
functions (even if there are no any users of these)?

> P.S. Please use the email addresses in MAINTAINERS,
> M: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>
> L: linux-ide@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> The email address is only used for legal (sign-off)
> purposes, not normal use.

Got it, thanks!

Anton Vorontsov
email: cbouatmailru@xxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at