From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] add CNS3xxx AHCI support Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 18:17:56 -0500 Message-ID: <4D264DA4.6040308@pobox.com> References: <1294206187-11487-1-git-send-email-mkl0301@gmail.com> <4D24B53C.4020009@pobox.com> <20110106105157.GA9560@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-qw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.216.46]:39567 "EHLO mail-qw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752500Ab1AFXSD (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jan 2011 18:18:03 -0500 Received: by qwa26 with SMTP id 26so17278871qwa.19 for ; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 15:18:01 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20110106105157.GA9560@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Anton Vorontsov , Lin Mac Cc: htejun@gmail.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org On 01/06/2011 05:51 AM, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 02:43:08PM +0800, Lin Mac wrote: > [...] >>> It is overkill to rename the entirety of ahci_platform just for one override >>> function. >>> This sort of thing I would have expected to be added directly to >>> ahci_platform.c. >> It might be overkill for only one controller. but it is more clean and >> readable to have different SoC specific changes in separate files, >> especially when more SoCs need to make similar changes. > > I think that renaming the file is not necessary. You can just > rename the module in the makefile. > > Personally I like the current approach more than putting > controller-specific fixups directly into ahci_platform. My main objection is the renaming. If ahci_platform wants to export some symbols for SoC modules like ahci_platform_cns, that's ok. In general, follow the library approach rather than linking modules together in strange ways. Jeff From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jgarzik@pobox.com (Jeff Garzik) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 18:17:56 -0500 Subject: [PATCH v2 0/3] add CNS3xxx AHCI support In-Reply-To: <20110106105157.GA9560@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> References: <1294206187-11487-1-git-send-email-mkl0301@gmail.com> <4D24B53C.4020009@pobox.com> <20110106105157.GA9560@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> Message-ID: <4D264DA4.6040308@pobox.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 01/06/2011 05:51 AM, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 02:43:08PM +0800, Lin Mac wrote: > [...] >>> It is overkill to rename the entirety of ahci_platform just for one override >>> function. >>> This sort of thing I would have expected to be added directly to >>> ahci_platform.c. >> It might be overkill for only one controller. but it is more clean and >> readable to have different SoC specific changes in separate files, >> especially when more SoCs need to make similar changes. > > I think that renaming the file is not necessary. You can just > rename the module in the makefile. > > Personally I like the current approach more than putting > controller-specific fixups directly into ahci_platform. My main objection is the renaming. If ahci_platform wants to export some symbols for SoC modules like ahci_platform_cns, that's ok. In general, follow the library approach rather than linking modules together in strange ways. Jeff