linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] ARM: sunxi: Add an ahci-platform compatible AHCI driver for the Allwinner SUNXi series of SoCs

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]

Message-ID: <529F2677.3070208@schinagl.nl>
Date:	Wed, 04 Dec 2013 13:56:23 +0100
From:	Oliver Schinagl <oliver@...inagl.nl>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC:	grant.likely@...aro.org,
	"rob.herring@...xeda.com" <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, dev@...ux-sunxi.org,
	maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com, ijc@...lion.org.uk,
	hdegoede@...hat.com, oliver+list@...inagl.nl
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ARM: sunxi: Add an ahci-platform compatible AHCI
 driver for the Allwinner SUNXi series of SoCs


On 04-12-13 13:37, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 01:10:54PM +0100, oliver@...inagl.nl wrote:
>> From: Oliver Schinagl <oliver@...inagl.nl>
>>
>> This patch adds support for the sunxi series of SoC's by allwinner. It
>> plugs into the ahci-platform framework.
>>
>> Note: Currently it uses a somewhat hackish approach that probably needs
>> a lot more work, but does the same as the IMX SoC's.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Olliver Schinagl <oliver@...inagl.nl>
>> ---
>>   .../devicetree/bindings/ata/ahci-sunxi.txt         |  24 ++
>>   drivers/ata/Kconfig                                |   9 +
>>   drivers/ata/Makefile                               |   1 +
>>   drivers/ata/ahci_platform.c                        |  12 +
>>   drivers/ata/ahci_sunxi.c                           | 305 +++++++++++++++++++++
> I'm not really liking the way things are going.  Do we really need
> separate drivers for each platform ahci implementation.  Are they
> really that different?  Would it be impossible to make ahci_platform
> generic enough so that we don't eventually end up with a gazillion
> ahci_XXX drivers?
I took the imx driver as example, as I wasn't sure on where to start. 
But I don't think it's possible yet without improving ahci_platform as I 
suggested in the cover letter. So if ahci_platform needs to be improved, 
I guess a separate patch series would be more appropriate?

So would it be acceptable to have this as the 2nd (and last?) 
ahci_platform driver and go from there? Or do you want to block new 
ahci_XXX drivers until ahci_platform has been improved?

Oliver
>

--
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/