From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [ACPI] Re: RFC: ACPI/scsi/libata integration and hotswap Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 06:42:12 -0500 Message-ID: <43996D94.5080108@pobox.com> References: <20051208030242.GA19923@srcf.ucam.org> <20051208091542.GA9538@infradead.org> <20051208132657.GA21529@srcf.ucam.org> <20051208133308.GA13267@infradead.org> <20051208133945.GA21633@srcf.ucam.org> <20051208135225.GA13122@havoc.gtf.org> <1134050863.17102.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> <43983FC6.6050108@pobox.com> <1134052257.17102.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail.dvmed.net ([216.237.124.58]:22960 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750970AbVLILmU (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Dec 2005 06:42:20 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1134052257.17102.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Cox Cc: Matthew Garrett , 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 Alan Cox wrote: > On Iau, 2005-12-08 at 09:14 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: > >>These are only for PATA. We don't care about _GTM/_STM on SATA. > > > Even your piix driver supports PATA. Put the foaming (justified ;)) > hatred for ACPI aside for a moment and take a look at the real world as > it unfortunately is right now. First, I clearly said "except on ata_piix ... or PATA" Second, don't put words in my mouth. I don't hate ACPI, and libata's direction for hotswap and suspend/resume has zero to do with "foaming hatred." Right now, the top priority is getting SATA suspend/resume correct, and _hopefully_ doing it in a way that's friendly to PATA. And as I said, we don't care about _GTM/_STM on SATA. Further, all current ACPI proposed code is completely half-assed. It's "hope and pray", because libata configures the device and does resets -- which is bound to CONFLICT WITH ACPI. Even further, I want to support both ACPI cases (x86[-64]) and non-ACPI cases (other arches). Some platforms want ACPI for passwords or other settings. Some platforms don't have ACPI at all. Locking libata into ACPI _only_ for suspend/resume is completely unacceptable. I'm not a hope-n-pray kind of guy. I want to get it right. People are more than welcome to use unapplied patches floating around the 'net until we get there. Jeff