[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120807154458.GK24257@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 16:44:58 +0100
From: Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...il.com>,
sameo@...ux.intel.com, rpurdie@...ys.net, bryan.wu@...onical.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Bergmann Arnd <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] mfd: replace IORESOURCE_IO by IORESOURCE_MEM
On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 05:22:45PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> And as Arnd pointed out, if resources will be used for various new buses,
> "IORESOURCE_FOO" or "IORESOURCE_OTHER" is a bit vague.
> What about conflicts where one driver means i2c addresses and another
> one means gpio addresses? The resource system will reject them?
I changed the subsequent patch to use IORESOURCE_REG - at least that
better describes what it's for. Maybe IORESOURCE_REGRANGE would be
better (so it can be used for any register range resource on any bus
type) ?
However, one issue that I hope has already been addressed is what space
the ranges are in, and how does a sub-driver get to know that. To put
it another way, how does a sub-driver get to know about the 'base' for
these register ranges. I hope that problem has been thought about in
MFD land _before_ the approach of passing around register ranges
through resources was allowed to happen.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of:
--
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