Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Driver/IFC: Move Freescale IFC driver to a common driver | From | Scott Wood <> | Date | Mon, 13 Jan 2014 15:24:21 -0600 |
| |
On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 22:22 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Monday 13 January 2014, Scott Wood wrote: > > On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 20:45 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Monday 13 January 2014, Scott Wood wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 14:32 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > > On Monday 13 January 2014, Prabhakar Kushwaha wrote: > > > > > > Freescale IFC controller has been used for mpc8xxx. It will be used > > > > > > for ARM-based SoC as well. This patch moves the driver to driver/misc > > > > > > and fix the header file includes. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Prabhakar Kushwaha <prabhakar@freescale.com> > > > > > > > > > > No objections to the driver, but drivers/misc doesn't seem like the > > > > > right place. Why not drivers/mfd or drivers/memory? > > > > > > > > It's not a memory controller in the sense that I think most people would > > > > interpret the phrase, but I guess it's similar in function to > > > > mvebu-devbus. If drivers/memory is broad enough to cover such things, > > > > and doesn't have a memory controller subsystem that drivers are supposed > > > > to register with, then that could work. > > > > > > > > Are things in drivers/mfd expected to interact with mfd-core.c? It's > > > > not clear to me what that does or how it would be useful to the IFC > > > > code. > > > > > > Sorry, I meant mtd not mfd. mtd would make sense if the only devices > > > behind it are things like flash or sram memory. > > > > Some of the things behind it are flash, but those portions of the driver > > are already in drivers/mtd. This is just the common code. > > > > What are the things that are not flash then?
FPGAs or any other random things that might get connected to it on a custom board.
-Scott
| |