From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sdhci-pxa: add call back interface to share sdhci-pxa Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 16:56:36 +0200 Message-ID: <201105231656.36944.arnd@arndb.de> References: <201105191504.49875.arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.187]:64100 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755324Ab1EWO4u (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 May 2011 10:56:50 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org To: zhangfei gao Cc: Philip Rakity , Wolfram Sang , Chris Ball , "linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org" , Jun Nie , Raymond Wu , Haojian Zhuang , Mark Brown , Shawn Guo On Monday 23 May 2011, zhangfei gao wrote: > When we start to share sdhci-pxa, we find another sdhci-platfm occurs. > While in Shawn's patch, driver self-register is recommended. > If this is new trend, it maybe a better choice to use separate driver > for each device based on updated sdhci-platfm.c by Shawn. > Will update the sdhci-mmp2.c for mmp2 only based on Shawn's modification. Having each driver register its own platform_driver sounds like the best solution to me. Whether you do that on top of sdhci-pltfm.c or model sdhci-pxa.c to be similar to sdhci-pltfm.c is a different question. I don't care much either way, so just do whichever works best for you. Maybe Shawn or Chris can recommend what they think would work better. Arnd