From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: Is there a binding for IORESOURCE_DMA population? Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:04:17 +0200 Message-ID: <201107171704.17779.arnd@arndb.de> References: <20110715163254.GG1840@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net> <4E22E66D.5010809@freescale.com> <20110717142838.GI2374@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110717142838.GI2374-+NayF8gZjK2ctlrPMvKcciBecyulp+rMXqFh9Ls21Oc@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org Sender: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org To: Shawn Guo Cc: Guo Shawn-R65073 , "devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org" , Tabi Timur-B04825 , Sascha Hauer List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Sunday 17 July 2011 16:28:39 Shawn Guo wrote: > I was not part of creating imx-ssi. But I guess that Sascha (Cc-ed) > might have strong reasons for creating it rather than reusing fsl-ssi. > I really doubt that missing device-tree on ARM platform is the only > reason resulting two ssi drivers. > > I'm also not a fan of consolidating device driver between fsl mpc and > imx family, especially I had a try on eSDHC and saw something ugly > and negative feedback from people. > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mmc/7832 > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mmc/8202 > > So unless someone initiates the consolidation of fsl-ssi and imx-ssi, > I will keep going option b). If the consolidation is reasonable and > possible, it can happen anytime no matter whether device-tree is > added for imx-ssi or not. I think this sort of driver consolidation is generally a good thing, but it requires that the consolidated driver is clearly better than either of the two original drivers. People are generally very attached to the code they maintain and don't like to see their work getting replaced by the same thing done differently. However, there are lots of disadvantages to having multiple drivers for the same hardware and we clearly want to have only one if we only need one. How we get there depends a lot on the situation, and with the esdhc driver, there wasn't that much duplication: Your patch actually added more code than it removed and it added a number of #ifdef sections were not present in the original drivers. Arnd