Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 04 Dec 2013 13:56:23 +0100 | From | Oliver Schinagl <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/3] ARM: sunxi: Add an ahci-platform compatible AHCI driver for the Allwinner SUNXi series of SoCs |
| |
On 04-12-13 13:37, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 01:10:54PM +0100, oliver@schinagl.nl wrote: >> From: Oliver Schinagl <oliver@schinagl.nl> >> >> This patch adds support for the sunxi series of SoC's by allwinner. It >> plugs into the ahci-platform framework. >> >> Note: Currently it uses a somewhat hackish approach that probably needs >> a lot more work, but does the same as the IMX SoC's. >> >> Signed-off-by: Olliver Schinagl <oliver@schinagl.nl> >> --- >> .../devicetree/bindings/ata/ahci-sunxi.txt | 24 ++ >> drivers/ata/Kconfig | 9 + >> drivers/ata/Makefile | 1 + >> drivers/ata/ahci_platform.c | 12 + >> drivers/ata/ahci_sunxi.c | 305 +++++++++++++++++++++ > I'm not really liking the way things are going. Do we really need > separate drivers for each platform ahci implementation. Are they > really that different? Would it be impossible to make ahci_platform > generic enough so that we don't eventually end up with a gazillion > ahci_XXX drivers? I took the imx driver as example, as I wasn't sure on where to start. But I don't think it's possible yet without improving ahci_platform as I suggested in the cover letter. So if ahci_platform needs to be improved, I guess a separate patch series would be more appropriate?
So would it be acceptable to have this as the 2nd (and last?) ahci_platform driver and go from there? Or do you want to block new ahci_XXX drivers until ahci_platform has been improved?
Oliver >
|  |