Re: [PATCH 1/2] [IDE] Platform IDE driver

[Sergei Shtylyov]

Scott Wood wrote:

> > > It doesn't buy us anything in here, but it's conceivable that someone 
> > > may want to write a driver that uses a shift in the I/O accessor 
> > > rather than an array of port offsets,

> >    It wouldn't be IDE driver then, and neither it would be libata 
> > which also does this another way this (despite pata_platform uses 
> > shifts too -- not in the accessors, so no speed loss).

> The device tree is not just for Linux.

   Yeah, and I can't wait to see some other its users. ;-)
   This doesn't mean that shift is better anyway. If everyone considers it 
better, I give up. But be warned that shift (stride) is not the only property 
characterizing register accesses -- the regs might be only accessible as 
16/32-bit quantities, for example (16-bit is a real world example -- from 
Amiga or smth of that sort, IIRC).

> > > equivalent of the cntlzw innstruction, and shift makes it clear that 
> > > the stride must be power-of-two).  Plus, using shift is consistent 
> > > with what we do on ns16550.

> >    Why the heck should we care about the UART code taling about IDE?!

> Consistency?

   We're not obliged to be consistent with every piece of the kernel code.

> -Scott

MBR, Sergei
-
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/