| To: | "Lyle Bainbridge" <lyle@zevion.com> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: IDE initialization on AU1500? |
| From: | Juan Quintela <quintela@mandrakesoft.com> |
| Date: | Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:50:16 +0200 |
| Cc: | "'linux-mips'" <linux-mips@linux-mips.org> |
| In-reply-to: | <000201c2f746$7fe683a0$1301a8c0@RADIUM> ("Lyle Bainbridge"'s message of "Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:29:28 -0600") |
| Original-recipient: | rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| References: | <000201c2f746$7fe683a0$1301a8c0@RADIUM> |
| Sender: | linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org |
| User-agent: | Gnus/5.090015 (Oort Gnus v0.15) Emacs/21.2.93 |
>>>>> "lyle" == Lyle Bainbridge <lyle@zevion.com> writes: Hi lyle> Still, I can't explain why the scanning of non-existent hwifs was lyle> ever done this way. I wonder if this was rectified when the IDE lyle> subsystem was refactored in the 2.5 kernel. I know this new IDE lyle> code was back ported to 2.4.21 also. Let's hope things are a done lyle> a little bit better in this new code. Just nick-pitting, it is the other way around: - 2.4.X (X < 20 ide code) - 2.4.X Andrew Hendrik code, lately adopted by Alan Cox. - 2.5.X refactoring (jsut dropped) Now 2.4.21-preX and 2.5.X (where X is something new), have the Andrew Hendrik/Alan Cox IDE code. Later, Juan. -- In theory, practice and theory are the same, but in practice they are different -- Larry McVoy |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | RE: IDE initialization on AU1500?, Pete Popov |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Au1500 hardware cache coherency, Hartvig Ekner |
| Previous by Thread: | RE: IDE initialization on AU1500?, Pete Popov |
| Next by Thread: | Au1500 hardware cache coherency, Hartvig Ekner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |