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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <52A19502.1090409@schinagl.nl>
Date:	Fri, 06 Dec 2013 10:12:34 +0100
From:	Oliver Schinagl <oliver@...inagl.nl>
To:	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>
CC:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Olliver Schinagl <oliver+list@...inagl.nl>,
	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, Richard Zhu <r65037@...escale.com>,
	Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ARM: sunxi: Add an ahci-platform compatible AHCI
 driver for the Allwinner SUNXi series of SoCs


On 06-12-13 10:01, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Dear Tejun Heo,
>
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 08:23:12 -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
>>> But again, point me (for dummies ;) in the right direction and I'll
>>> work on it with some help.
>> Richard and Shawn recently worked on ahci_imx.  Can you guys please
>> talk with each other and figure out what can be done to share as much
>> as possible among these new platform-specific drivers?  I'd really
>> like to see the common things factored out as much as possible with
>> only the actual hardware differences described for each device.
> Also, please Cc me on such discussions. I have a pending AHCI platform
> driver for another ARM SoC family. It is very similar to ahci_platform,
> but needs to do a few more things that are SoC specific (map an
> additional register area, and do some SoC-specific stuff with them).
>
> For the moment, we're left with two approaches:
>
>   * Do what Oliver did, where the ahci_<foo> driver will do its own
>     SoC-specific stuff, and then will register an additional
>     platform_device to trigger the ->probe() of the generic
>     ahci_platform driver. I must say I don't really like this solution,
>     since it involves having two platform_device registered for the same
>     piece of hardware (one platform_device to trigger the ->probe of
>     ahci_<foo>, and another one to trigger the ->probe of ahci_platform).
>
>   * Duplicate in ahci_<foo> the (relatively small) amount of code that
>     is present in ahci_platform.
>
>  From my point of view, ahci_platform should be turned into a small
> "library", that provides an API for ahci_<foo> drivers to 1/ do their
> own custom stuff and 2/ do the common ahci_platform stuff.
>
> This way we avoid the registration of two platform_device for the same
> piece of hardware, and we avoid the duplication of code.
>
> Want me to propose a RFC for this idea?
I've started to do what sdhci does with their pltfrm driver, assuming 
that's the right approach. Since i'm only dabbling and not always 100% 
sure what should or shouldn't be done, it may take a little while, but 
looks promising from my end ;)

So is the sdhci-pltfrm approach the correct one? We still have ahci_* 
drivers, but ahci_platform.c won't be a driver in the sense that it is 
now anymore.

Oliver
>
> Best regards,
>
> Thomas

--
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/