[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: PATA transition

On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 05:05:47PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> (Replying to the list only; please CC me on replies as I'm not subscribed)
> On Thursday 18 March 2010, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > PATA drivers of either flavour are mostly selected on a per-architecture
> > basis, and no change has been made to non-x86.  If people are willing to
> > test on the non-x86 architectures then we may have a chance to change
> > them over as well.
> Does that mean that for other arches the kernel config remains unchanged, 
> or that they will get the new pata drivers, but without automatic 
> conversion support?

The kernel config remains unchanged.

> I don't think the first would be a very good idea as it means that we'll 
> still not be rid of the IDE drivers. It seems better to concentrate the
> "pain" in one release than dragging it out.
> As for not offering automated conversion support, IMO that's acceptable for 
> non-x86 arches[1]. But I think it would be good to display a huge warning.

There is code to display a warning for files that require manual conversion.
And that would be needed for architectures/boot loaders that do not support
an initramfs or initrd, since we cannot use LABEL/UUID specifications for

> As to testing. I have in the past tested the pata_cmd64x driver, and can 
> confirm that it works fine for my Ultra10.

I'm more concerned about boot loader config than the drivers themselves.
> [1] Although it could be painful for e.g. headless NAS systems.

Why so?


Ben Hutchings
We get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinking.
                                                              - Albert Camus

Reply to: