Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 06 Dec 2013 10:12:34 +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 06-12-13 10:01, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Dear Tejun Heo, > > On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 08:23:12 -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: > >>> But again, point me (for dummies ;) in the right direction and I'll >>> work on it with some help. >> Richard and Shawn recently worked on ahci_imx. Can you guys please >> talk with each other and figure out what can be done to share as much >> as possible among these new platform-specific drivers? I'd really >> like to see the common things factored out as much as possible with >> only the actual hardware differences described for each device. > Also, please Cc me on such discussions. I have a pending AHCI platform > driver for another ARM SoC family. It is very similar to ahci_platform, > but needs to do a few more things that are SoC specific (map an > additional register area, and do some SoC-specific stuff with them). > > For the moment, we're left with two approaches: > > * Do what Oliver did, where the ahci_<foo> driver will do its own > SoC-specific stuff, and then will register an additional > platform_device to trigger the ->probe() of the generic > ahci_platform driver. I must say I don't really like this solution, > since it involves having two platform_device registered for the same > piece of hardware (one platform_device to trigger the ->probe of > ahci_<foo>, and another one to trigger the ->probe of ahci_platform). > > * Duplicate in ahci_<foo> the (relatively small) amount of code that > is present in ahci_platform. > > From my point of view, ahci_platform should be turned into a small > "library", that provides an API for ahci_<foo> drivers to 1/ do their > own custom stuff and 2/ do the common ahci_platform stuff. > > This way we avoid the registration of two platform_device for the same > piece of hardware, and we avoid the duplication of code. > > Want me to propose a RFC for this idea? I've started to do what sdhci does with their pltfrm driver, assuming that's the right approach. Since i'm only dabbling and not always 100% sure what should or shouldn't be done, it may take a little while, but looks promising from my end ;)
So is the sdhci-pltfrm approach the correct one? We still have ahci_* drivers, but ahci_platform.c won't be a driver in the sense that it is now anymore.
Oliver > > Best regards, > > Thomas
|  |