[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FCE07EE.40003@pengutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 15:21:50 +0200
From: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
To: Alessandro Rubini <rubini@...dd.com>
CC: bhupesh.sharma@...com, federico.vaga@...il.com,
alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, wg@...ndegger.com,
giancarlo.asnaghi@...com, alan@...ux.intel.com,
linux-can@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] c_can_pci: generic module for c_can on PCI
On 06/05/2012 03:13 PM, Alessandro Rubini wrote:
>>> My implementation is align to 32, but I'm trying to make a generic PCI
>>> wrapper (some other could be aligned to 16)
>
>> So it means your implementation is also flaky and you are probably
>> wasting HW memory space while integrating the Bosch C_CAN module in
>> your SoC :)
>
> Then I may say _your_ implementation is flaky because it wastes one
> bit in the address decoder and a lot of logic gates in the data
> bus. It's normal to align registers at 32 bits, as it's simpler and
> faster. Most SoCs have only 32-bit aligned registers, for a reason.
>
>> I am not a big fan of adding platform specific flakes in any core
>> file, that why we keep the platform file separate from the core
>> ones.
>
> A number of other drivers have a shift parameter, because it's very
> common for the hardware integrator to feel free to choose the easiest
> wiring for the device. The choice to keep the platform driver
> separate from the core driver only adds complication in my opinion:
> you need to export 4 symbols and yhen every user must duplicate code
> (like federico is replicating theplatform driver in the pci driver).
>
> I'd really prefer to have the core driver be a platform driver, and
> the others just add platform data to describe how it is wired. That's
> actually the reason why the platform bus exists.
>
>> But I will left Marc and Wolfgang to further comment on the same.
>
> I agree: let them decide.
I personally like the "pci device sets up a platform device" idea.
My question is, is this considered being a good practise?
Marc
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde |
Industrial Linux Solutions | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 |
Vertretung West/Dortmund | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | http://www.pengutronix.de |
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (263 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists