Re: [PATCH] pdc20265 problem.

[Alan Cox]

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...