linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/12] pinctrl: basic Nomadik pinctrl interface

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 10 May 2012 17:12:02 +0200
From:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>,
	Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...escale.com>,
	Thomas Abraham <thomas.abraham@...aro.org>,
	Dong Aisheng <dong.aisheng@...aro.org>,
	Rajendra Nayak <rajendra.nayak@...aro.org>,
	Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...vell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/12] pinctrl: basic Nomadik pinctrl interface

Then it's probably a good idea to actually loop in Arnd too...
sorry for missing it!

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> wrote:
> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org> wrote:

>>> +static int __devinit nmk_pinctrl_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>
>>> +     /* Poke in other ASIC variants here */
>>> +     if (platid->driver_data == PINCTRL_NMK_DB8500)
>>> +             nmk_pinctrl_db8500_init(&npct->soc);
>>
>> Other platforms have a unique top-level driver for each variant, with
>> the probe() function for each variant calling into a utility function.
>> That way, the common/utility code doesn't need to contain a
>> table/list/... of all the variants. Can the same approach be used here?
>
> Of course I could do it that way, but it's not using this feature
> of the driver base to have a string identifier telling which version
> it is.
>
> Since I'm unsure, let's ask Arnd.
>
> Arnd, what is your preferred design pattern of:
>
> A) sub-drivers that register one struct platform_driver per
>  variant, then calls into a shared core driver, or
>
> B) a shared core driver registering one platform_driver
>  with several struct platform_device_id that then call
>  sub-drivers depending on which one is found
>
> Either way is actually OK for me, but I was thinking if one
> is preferred over the other.
>
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij

Linus Walleij
--
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/