[PATCH v3] libata: pata_samsung_cf: Add Samsung PATA controller driver

Jeff Garzik jgarzik at pobox.com
Thu Jun 10 05:37:53 EDT 2010


On 06/10/2010 04:56 AM, Ben Dooks wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 04:52:07AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> On 06/10/2010 03:50 AM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
>>> From: Abhilash Kesavan<a.kesavan at samsung.com>
>>>
>>> Adds support for the Samsung PATA controller. This driver is based on the
>>> Libata subsystem and references the earlier patches sent for IDE subsystem.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Abhilash Kesavan<a.kesavan at samsung.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim<kgene.kim at samsung.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Changes since v2:
>>> - Changed the DRV_NAME to pata_samsung_cf
>>> - Used msleep instead of mdelay
>>>
>>>    drivers/ata/Makefile          |    1 +
>>>    drivers/ata/pata_samsung_cf.c |  608 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>    3 files changed, 618 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>    create mode 100644 drivers/ata/pata_samsung_cf.c
>>
>> Acked-by: Jeff Garzik<jgarzik at redhat.com>
>>
>>
>> I presume you'll send this upstream via the appropriate ARM tree.
>
> It depends on whether Linus un-declares his current suspensio nof
> ARM based work. The machine updtaes should go via the samsung tree
> but whether to send the driver that was is another matter (I prefer
> to have drivers go via the driver's tree to avoid clashes in
> Makefile and Kconfig).

I don't mind merging it, but usually platform drivers do not build 
and/or work without additional platform glue.  Isn't that the case here?


> PS, what's your policy on -rc inclusion of completely new code
> such as this?

New drivers are fine (which is standard policy outside libata, too), as 
they will not cause regressions, and will enable new users.

	Jeff






More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list