[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180116150931.GA17237@red-moon>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:09:31 +0000
From: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
To: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>
Cc: Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@...e-electrons.com>,
bhelgaas@...gle.com, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
adouglas@...ence.com, stelford@...ence.com, dgary@...ence.com,
kgopi@...ence.com, eandrews@...ence.com,
thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com, sureshp@...ence.com,
nsekhar@...com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, robh@...nel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] PCI: cadence: Add host driver for Cadence PCIe
controller
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 04:46:12PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
[...]
> > +static struct platform_driver cdns_pcie_host_driver = {
> > + .driver = {
> > + .name = "cdns-pcie-host",
> > + .of_match_table = cdns_pcie_host_of_match,
> > + },
> > + .probe = cdns_pcie_host_probe,
> > +};
>
> In the case of DWC, designware core is modeled as a library which has
> API's to be invoked by various platform specific glue drivers.
>
> But with the cadence approach we'll have two separate drivers: the
> cadence core driver and the platform specific glue drivers. Is this
> approach chosen for a specific reason?
That's a fair point but I do not think that's a concern at the moment.
If/when other platform drivers are built around the generic IP we just
have to refactor this driver and turn into a core library + a PCI host
bridge driver like dwc does, at the moment I do not necessarily see the
reason for splitting them.
Cyrille ?
Thanks,
Lorenzo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists