[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171102104407.GA14048@kroah.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 11:44:07 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@...aro.org>,
sumit.semwal@...aro.org, arve@...roid.com, riandrews@...roid.com,
dan.carpenter@...cle.com, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] staging: ion: create one device entry per heap
On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 07:11:53PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 12:03:35PM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote:
>
> > I'm not a fan of the platform bus but I have mixed feelings about
> > creating a dedicated bus type. I guess if we really need a bus
> > type we can do it later?
>
> There was a discussion a while ago in the context of I2C/SPI MFDs
> which concluded that if you need a bus and it's going to be effectively
> noop then you should just use the platform bus as anything else will
> consist almost entirely of cut'n'paste from the platform bus with some
> light sed usage and code duplication is bad. It's not super lovely as
> it's not actually a memory mapped device but it's the best idea we've
> got.
Ugh, I hate that. What's wrong with using a "virtual" device instead?
I can create a "virtual" bus for things like this if they really want a
"simple" bus, abusing platform for this is the major reason I hate the
platform bus code...
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists