Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 15:02:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 15:02:20 -0400 Received: from mion.elka.pw.edu.pl ([194.29.160.35]:58829 "EHLO mion.elka.pw.edu.pl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 15:02:16 -0400 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 21:05:24 +0200 (MET DST) From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz To: Nick Orlov cc: lkml Subject: Re: [PATCH] pdc20265 problem. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1245 Lines: 38 > Just FYI, > > before these "#ifdef" fixes it was treated as OFF_BOARD unless > CONFIG_PDC202XX_FORCE is set. (now it's inverted) This should be fixed. > > And my point is that it does not matter how physically this controller > installed - onboard or offboard. Idea is that we should have control It is not on/offboard case. It is primary/secondary boot device case. > which controller should be treated as "primary" (ide0/1) and which as > "secondary" (ide2/3). I don't see/know how we can do it unless we mark > one of controllers ON_BOARD and another OFF_BOARD and play with > CONFIG_BLK_DEV_OFFBOARD. Yes. > And also I don't believe that this is good idea to treat one of Promises > so differently. Once again - on some machines it is primary IDE (booting one), so we have to give user possibility for 'onboarding' it. However it should depend on CONFIG_PDC202XX_FORCE... hmm... but on others it is offboard so distro compiled kernels might have problem here :\. Regards -- Bartlomiej - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/