pnp/IDE question- help fixing up a patch

From: Ted Kaminski (
Date: Thu Dec 12 2002 - 00:01:47 EST

Hello all,

I've got an ide, and an idepnp question... (for 2.4)

I'm working on refining a patch sent previously
( to
be less intrusive. I'll be refering to things done in that patch...

The short of it is, this sb16 pnpide interface apparently cannot use
ALTSTATUS at a certain point. (I'm no ide whiz, I'm just simplifying the
code that David Meybohm wrote, so maybe I'm off a bit) at any rate, this
seems to require a new flag be listed along with the hardware information.

His solution was to add
+ int no_passive; /* no passive status tests */
to hw_reg_s in ide.h and check that flag in drive_is_ready()

I *think* it's out of place. It seems to me it'd be more appropriate to add
+ unsigned no_passive : 1; /* no passive status tests */
to hwif_s in ide.h. Right next to a few other bitfields

Which is better? or is there a different, even better spot?

As for the idepnp part, he added a "dev = NULL" into the loop, and was
unsure of whether or not this was a good idea. I have the same question.
Or perhaps this smells of a seperate patch?

I'd rather ask these question in the form of my own patch, but... I'm a bit
short on time, atm. sorry.

Thanks in advace,

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 15 2002 - 22:00:24 EST