Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 13 Dec 2022 07:22:57 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To:     Ondrej Zary <linux@zary.sk>
Cc:     Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@omp.ru>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Tim Waugh <tim@cyberelk.net>,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-parport@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pata_parport: add driver (PARIDE replacement)
Message-ID: <20221213062257.GA1630@lst.de>
References: <20220312144415.20010-1-linux@zary.sk> <202211151556.52895.linux@zary.sk> <bfc49618-dbc3-8ffb-f536-3b4486e1980e@opensource.wdc.com> <202212122355.30988.linux@zary.sk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <202212122355.30988.linux@zary.sk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 11:55:30PM +0100, Ondrej Zary wrote:
> The locking problems seem not to be easily solvable. Maybe a hack that grabs
> the parport before registering ata interface (and keeps it until the
> interface is disabled) will help? That will prevent multiple chained devices
> on one parport from working but can get pata_parport moving.

That does seem like a good start.  Does anyone even still use chained
devices?