Re: [BK PATCHES] add ata scsi driver

[Jeff Garzik (jgarzik@pobox.com)]

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, 26 May 2003, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> > I think with SATA + drivers/ide, you reach a point of diminishing 
> > returns versus amount of time spent on mid-layer coding.
>
>
> I think that's a valid approach, and just have a special driver for SATA. 
> That's not the part I worry about. 

You're still at a point of diminishing returns for a native driver too.

ATAPI support would be a pain.  Can't use drivers/ide/* nor ide-scsi.

Userland support is nonexistent, and users would have start using yet 
another set of tools to deal with their disks, instead of the existing 
[scsi] ones.

Device model, power management, hotplugging are all handled or 
in-the-works for scsi, and they are exactly what SATA needs.  I would 
have to recreate all that handling from scratch.

I think you're missing how much code and pain is actually saved by using 
the scsi layer...  like I mentioned in the last message, long-term, 
these issues can (and should) be solved by moving some of this stuff out 
of the scsi layer into the block layer, creating an overall desirable 
flattening effect of all code involved.


> The part I worry about is the SCSI layer itself, and also potential user
> confusion.

I think this can only benefit the scsi layer and continue its trend of 
becoming more lightweight and lib'ified.

WRT user confusion, I agree:  that's why PATA is a config option.  I 
would prefer people think "SATA? use my driver.  PATA? use drivers/ide"

Andre suggested that I might support PCI PATA controllers in my driver 
"officially", but I think user confusion and transition issues rule out 
that, for non-hackers.

	Jeff



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/