Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 5 Jun 2008 22:00:58 +0400 | From | Anton Vorontsov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] [RFC v3] OF: OpenFirmware bindings for the mmc_spi driver |
| |
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 11:36:09AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Anton Vorontsov > <avorontsov@ru.mvista.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 10:45:17AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Anton Vorontsov > >> <avorontsov@ru.mvista.com> wrote: > >> > Here is v3. I'm out of ideas if you won't like it. :-) > >> > > >> > v3: > >> > - Now these bindings are using bus notifiers chain, thus we adhere to the > >> > spi bus. > >> > > >> > By the way, this scheme (IMO) looks good for I2C devices which needs > >> > platform_data extracted from the device tree too (Cc'ing Jochen). > >> > > >> > - Plus changed the OF bindings themselves, implemented voltage-range > >> > property. (Pierre, please take a look at vddrange_to_ocrmask(). I > >> > wonder if you would like this in the MMC core instead, with a kernel > >> > doc, of course.) > >> > > >> > v2: > >> > - Bindings were adhered to the MMC_SPI driver. Withdrawn by Pierre Ossman. > >> > >> Personally I think your v2 was better, and if I'm interpreting > >> Pierre's comments correctly I think his main point is that instead of > >> using the 'stock' probe/remove hooks for the spi mmc driver, the > >> driver should be mildly reworked to provide a common block of code > >> that can be used by both the OF and non-OF versions of the > >> probe/remove routines. I also think that is the way to go. > > > > Well, I mentioned the usb_add_hcd()-alike approach for the mmc_spi > > host... The absence of enthusiasm I equaled to "no". > > > > Heh. > > I'm allergic to USB HCD code; I was probably having convulsions under my desk.
:-)
Ok, I also mentioned drivers/ata/pata_of_platform.c (OF version is using common code from drivers/ata/pata_platform.c).
Please look there, and tell me if this is what you have in mind. (ignore _probe in the __pata_platform_probe name. Imagine pata_platform_add_controller or something).
> > p.s. > > Btw, you forgot another downside of v2 approach: struct spi_driver > > duplication... Not sure if everyone will be happy about it. > > > > Though, v2 is only version where we can make modular OF_MMC_SPI. > > I think we've got our wires crossed. I'm not referring to the option > of an of_mmc_spi driver registering an mmc_spi device (which can then > be probed by the mmc_spi_driver).
I'm not refrering to this option either.
> I'm referring to refactoring the > probe/remove code so that common stuff is callable by both the mmc_spi > and of_mmc_spi drivers without the oddity of the of_mmc_spi probe hook > calling the mmc_spi probe hook.
I understand this.
-- Anton Vorontsov email: cbouatmailru@gmail.com irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2
| |