Hello.
Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
>>>driver to using platform-device. I got a reply, that it's not worth it now
>>>that IDE is slowly becoming obsolete, and the pata_platform serves the
>>>perpose perfectly well. I found this argument reasonable, I had the same
>>>doubt, just wanted to double-check. So, why do we now need a new legacy
>>>(a/drivers/ide/legacy/ide_platform.c) driver when a "modern" driver
>>>exists?
>>We don't *need* it but some people still want to use old IDE and the
>>author was willing to make it neatly compatible so that anything that
>>works with the pata_platform should be able to use the ide_platform
>>driver and vice versa. For the shorter term that can only be a good thing
>>- arch code doesn't need to care about which driver is used, end users
>>can pick and it doesn't end up adding new ties between code and old IDE.
> Ok, thanks for the explanation Alan. So, there's no technical argument,
> just "being nice to the users", and add a new driver, which we know we'll
> have to remove soon, thus having to persuade its users, who by that time
Define "soon". :-)
> will get used to it and will not want to invest money into switching to
> another one...
Invest into what if the drivers are functionally identical?
> Thanks
> Guennadi
MBR, Sergei
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
