On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, Rogier Wolff wrote:
> Similarly, I don't think we should have a quantum.c to talk to Quantum
> drives. Talking to quantum drives is similar enough to talking to
> maxtor drives that one driver should be able to handle it.
Unless you are asking about uniqueness in feature design.
> So, it's all a question of degree.
>
> I think that we need to share more code in the serial driver. Have a
> clean interface that reduces most serial drivers by 2000 lines-of-code
> or so. Are we at 1 bug per 600 LOC yet? That's three less bugs.
>
> I agree, maybe we should rethink the IDE driver. But NCR53c875 and
Yes/No just allow for correctness to data-phase and setups to allow
command completion by default and allow ways to handle exceptions if it is
known how to, also provide the needed override-jerk code for people with
root-hang-overs.
> SYM53C895 are close enough to be handled by one driver. So it's a
> matter of degree.
Andre Hedrick
The Linux ATA/IDE guy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 23 2000 - 21:00:08 EST