[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201306191437.20759.arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 14:37:20 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org"
<devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...aro.org>,
Jon Medhurst <tixy@...aro.org>,
Achin Gupta <Achin.Gupta@....com>,
Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/2] drivers: mfd: Versatile Express SPC support
On Wednesday 19 June 2013, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
> > 2. Move the vexpress-sysreg "platform management" functions into misc
> > (unless we get any better place for it)
> This is for Arnd and Greg to decide I suppose.
I think when vexpress-sysreg was created, we didn't have the syscon driver
yet, otherwise I think we should have used that, and put separate
drivers on top.
Not sure if it's too late for changing it to that now, given that
we already have a binding.
It seems we should use the same code for versatile and realview, or
at least it will only need small modifications to apply to all of
these platforms.
What I think could be helpful here is:
* export a "syscon" for the low-level registers
* add a gpio driver based on the syscon interface, and move the gpiochip
implementation there
* move the low-leve "config" code from the sysreg driver into the
vexpress-config driver and make it use the syscon.
* move the other global functions from the driver into the callers
and use syscon there.
That would end up eliminating the sysreg driver, aside from maybe
a one-line change to the syscon driver to allow it to probe the
right device.
> > 3. Move vexpress-config into drivers/bus as it is (however I see no one
> > in MAINTAINERS for this directory)
> ISTR that Arnd originally created that directory, so he may help here.
> Arnd also had some concerns about implementing this code as a bus,
> mostly about it not being a discoverable bus. IMHO that's a valid
> concern, and this is why you ended up putting it under MFD which can be
> seen as some sort of platform devices bus. But I still believe the bus
> API would make this code look cleaner and easier to maintain.
Sorry, I don't see why it would be a bus. I assume that there is code
missing somewhere that is not yet merged, right?
Arnd
--
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