From: Chris Ball <cjb@laptop.org>
To: zhangfei gao <zhangfei.gao@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, Wolfram Sang <w.sang@pengutronix.de>,
kmpark@infradead.org, eric.y.miao@gmail.com,
Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/1]MMC: add support of sdhci-pxa driver
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 20:45:26 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101007194526.GA16587@void.printf.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikK0oEwLEXaf_Q5XWi3nxoq8WKCzKiF87E_Z3k+@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Zhangfei, all,
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 11:23:35PM -0400, zhangfei gao wrote:
> We strongly prefer using standalone host driver currently, like
> sdhci-s3c.c, the scheme is more mature, more similar as our
> controller, and more flexiable for sharing one controller in different
> platform with different requirement.
> We would rather pay more effort to enable new feature of silicon, to
> enhance the sdhci.c, which benefit much more silicon vender, instead
> of paying much effort in how to abstract probe and remove.
> For the driver lever, we don't want too much dependence, the more
> dependence, the less stability.
> The sdhci-pltfm has good idea, however currently it does not meet our
> requirement, not say in the future.
Sorry for taking so long to reply to this -- it's been difficult to
decide whether to take this as a non-pltfm driver.
I've decided to take it since our encouragement of platform drivers is
recent, and Eric is also in favor of keeping it separate, and you've
both argued that -pltfm isn't easily able to handle the shared clock
situation on your hardware. (I'm sure it could be extended to be.)
So, please update the patch in light of Matt Fleming's review comments
and re-submit.
I don't agree, however, with the argument that SDHCI drivers are more
stable if they don't depend on a common core; the common core will
receive more maintenance if more people are using it. Going forward,
I think that new SDHCI driver work should either use -pltfm or give
strong technical reasons why -pltfm isn't appropriate, and give us a
chance to improve -pltfm in response. I think we should also consider
converting existing drivers over to platform drivers, even though that's
clearly difficult to accomplish after a driver's been merged.
Hope that helps to explain the situation as I see it, and I'd be happy
to hear any more comments on the -pltfm approach in general.
Thanks!
--
Chris Ball <cjb@laptop.org> <http://printf.net/>
One Laptop Per Child
prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-10-07 19:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-09-29 3:23 [PATCH V2 1/1]MMC: add support of sdhci-pxa driver zhangfei gao
2010-10-05 9:03 ` Matt Fleming
2010-10-18 12:23 ` zhangfei gao
2010-10-07 19:45 ` Chris Ball [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20101007194526.GA16587@void.printf.net \
--to=cjb@laptop.org \
--cc=eric.y.miao@gmail.com \
--cc=haojian.zhuang@gmail.com \
--cc=kmpark@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=w.sang@pengutronix.de \
--cc=zhangfei.gao@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.