From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: RFC: ACPI/scsi/libata integration and hotswap Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 13:33:08 +0000 Message-ID: <20051208133308.GA13267@infradead.org> References: <20051208030242.GA19923@srcf.ucam.org> <20051208091542.GA9538@infradead.org> <20051208132657.GA21529@srcf.ucam.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051208132657.GA21529@srcf.ucam.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Matthew Garrett Cc: 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 List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 01:26:57PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > 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. Don't do it at all. We don't need to fuck up every layer and driver for intels braindamage.