Re: [PATCH] pdc20265 problem.
Alan Cox (firstname.lastname@example.org)
03 Aug 2002 14:41:23 +0100
On Sat, 2002-08-03 at 02:22, Nick Orlov wrote:
> I think that question is _how often_ pdc20265 is used as primary
> controller? Actually I know a lot of mobos with pdc20265 as additional
> controller (and I don't see the one that uses it as primary).
> Don't forget about "ide=reverse" parameter that allows you to treat
> pdc20265 as primary if by default kernel treat pdc20265 as secondary.
> So I don't see _any_ reason to force pdc20265 to be primary (onboard)
> unless CONFIG_PDC202XX_FORCE is set.
This is the wrong question.
The right question for a stable kernel is "Why isnt it behaving
precisely the same way as it did before the merge". What got confused in
the _FORCE stuff. Why did _FORCE checks even get into the raid probe not
another config option...
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/