[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200804221055.09038.laurentp@cse-semaphore.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:55:06 +0200
From: Laurent Pinchart <laurentp@...-semaphore.com>
To: Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, avorontsov@...mvista.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC fs_enet: Convert MII bitbang driver to use GPIO lib
On Monday 21 April 2008 19:56, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 01:34:29PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > Scott Wood was concerned in
> > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=17490 that the gpio lib
> > might be an unnecessary burden for memory-constraint platforms. Should we
> > keep two mdio bitbang drivers, one with direct access to the ports and one
> > using gpio lib ? The later solves the concurrent access issues present in
> > the current fs_enet mdio bitbang driber.
>
> The memory-constrained platform I had in mind was 8xx, which doesn't use
> bitbanged MDIO. It might nice to keep the gpiolib bit separate to avoid
> situations such as ep8248e where mdiobb would be the only thing requiring
> a gpiolib binding, though -- but it shouldn't be two separate bitbang
> drivers, just the existing bitbang driver plus some glue code that binds
> it to gpiolib.
I would be fine with that if the glue code wasn't 90% of the whole driver.
There is really little (not to say nothing) that can be shared between the
two drivers.
--
Laurent Pinchart
CSE Semaphore Belgium
Chaussee de Bruxelles, 732A
B-1410 Waterloo
Belgium
T +32 (2) 387 42 59
F +32 (2) 387 42 75
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists