[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110401210036.GB30938@pengutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 23:00:36 +0200
From: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To: Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, david@...g.hm,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Brown <davidb@...eaurora.org>,
Detlef Vollmann <dv@...lmann.ch>,
Bill Gatliff <bgat@...lgatliff.com>,
Arun Murthy <arun.murthy@...ricsson.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] omap changes for v2.6.39 merge window
Hello,
On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 03:54:47PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> It would be more useful and scalable to simply sit down, look at the
> current mess, and identify common patterns that can be easily factored
> out into some shared library code, and all that would be left in the
> board or SOC specific files eventually is the data to register with that
> library code. Nothing so complicated as grand plans or planification
> that makes it look like a mountain.
>
> Two patterns were identified so far, and they are:
>
> 1) GPIO drivers
>
> As Linus observed, in the majority of the cases GPIOs are accessed
> through simple memory-mapped registers. Some have absolute state
> registers, the others have separate clear/set registers. Suffice to
> create two generic GPIO drivers each covering those two common cases,
> and those generic drivers would simply register with the higher level
> gpiolib code, and all the board code would have to do is to provide
> the data for those GPIOs (register offsets, number of GPIOs, etc.).
> Whether this data eventually comes from DT is an orthogonal issue.
>
> 2) IRQ chip drivers
>
> Again, as Thomas observed, the same issue exists with the majority of
> the IRQ chip drivers. Most of them follow a common simple pattern
> that can be abstracted in some generic library code due to their very
> similar mode of operation. Writing a common driver would leave the
> board specific code with only a data table describing hardware
> registers.
>
> A good example of such rationalization that already happened is the
> leds-gpio driver (./drivers/leds/leds-gpio.c), or similarly the
> gpio-keys driver (drivers/input/keyboard/gpio_keys.c). I remember when
> those board files were implementing their own simple drivers hooking
> directly to the input API or the LED API.
>
> After that let's take another identified common pattern and factorize it
> out from board code. That might be timers (see RMK's recent
> sched_clock() rationalization). That might be clocks (patches from
> Jeremy Kerr exist and need merged). Etc.
Another one is pwm (git ls-files arch/arm | grep pwm). A general
pwm framework was already discussed on lkml and linux-embedded
(http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.mips.general/29037/focus=44475);
I don't know the details though.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists