From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: RFC: ACPI/scsi/libata integration and hotswap Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 13:26:57 +0000 Message-ID: <20051208132657.GA21529@srcf.ucam.org> References: <20051208030242.GA19923@srcf.ucam.org> <20051208091542.GA9538@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([217.147.92.49]:43403 "EHLO vavatch.codon.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750977AbVLHN1F (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Dec 2005 08:27:05 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051208091542.GA9538@infradead.org> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig , randy_d_dunlap@linux.intel.com, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 09:15:42AM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > NACK. ACPI-specific hacks do not have any business at all in the scsi layer. Ok. What's the right layer to do this? The current ACPI/anything else glue depends on specific knowledge about the bus concerned, and needs callbacks registered before devices are added to that bus. Doing it in the sata layer would have the potential for unhappiness on mixed sata/scsi machines. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org