Re: kernel panic during boot for ata trouble

["Thomas E. Spanjaard" <tgen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Matthew Dillon wrote:
> :have you rescheduled ATA revisit?
> :When do you plan to renew ATA support?
> :Thank you in advance,                \fer
>     Well, Thomas and Simon set up a mercurial repository, but I really
>     don't want to try to use yet another repository to work on the driver.
>     I would much prefer that it simply be brought into CVS and worked on
>     in CVS.  It would simply remain disconnected from the build until 
>     it can be made to work.

You don't have to, it can be imported into CVS and have the existing 
patches applied there, and then the remaining work.

>     There are only two header files outside of the nata driver code that
>     conflict.  The nata driver versions of those header files can simply
>     be renamed so as not to conflict.

ata.h has already been renamed nata.h, and I guess you're talking about 
opt_ata.h for the other one, which can be renamed to opt_nata.h without 
too much of a problem. Then the only 'conflict' keeping both drivers 
from being in the same system is that the new ATA driver supports the 
same hardware as the old one besides new hardware it also supports, 
meaning it depends on who attaches first; we could just let config(8) 
bail out as soon as it finds both ata and nata devices in the kernel 
config. Also, it's possible to have both drivers attach only a set of 
devices which don't overlap with eachother. I'm not sure if that's 
something worth having?

Cheers,
--
        Thomas E. Spanjaard
        tgen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature