From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Olliver Schinagl Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ARM: sunxi: Add an ahci-platform compatible AHCI driver for the Allwinner SUNXi series of SoCs Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 14:16:49 +0100 Message-ID: <529F2B41.8090009@schinagl.nl> References: <1386159055-10264-1-git-send-email-oliver@schinagl.nl> <1386159055-10264-3-git-send-email-oliver@schinagl.nl> <20131204123708.GD3158@htj.dyndns.org> <529F2677.3070208@schinagl.nl> <20131204131402.GG3158@htj.dyndns.org> Reply-To: linux-sunxi-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20131204131402.GG3158-Gd/HAXX7CRxy/B6EtB590w@public.gmane.org> List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: linux-sunxi-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , To: Tejun Heo Cc: Oliver Schinagl , grant.likely-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, "rob.herring-bsGFqQB8/DxBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org" , linux-ide-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, dev-3kdeTeqwOZ9EV1b7eY7vFQ@public.gmane.org, maxime.ripard-wi1+55ScJUtKEb57/3fJTNBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org, ijc-KcIKpvwj1kUDXYZnReoRVg@public.gmane.org, hdegoede-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org On 04-12-13 14:14, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 01:56:23PM +0100, Oliver Schinagl wrote: >> I took the imx driver as example, as I wasn't sure on where to >> start. But I don't think it's possible yet without improving >> ahci_platform as I suggested in the cover letter. So if >> ahci_platform needs to be improved, I guess a separate patch series >> would be more appropriate? >> >> So would it be acceptable to have this as the 2nd (and last?) >> ahci_platform driver and go from there? Or do you want to block new >> ahci_XXX drivers until ahci_platform has been improved? > > I don't want to block new drivers unconditionally but at least I want > to know which direction we're headed in the longer term. Right now it > feels like we could be at the beginning of an uncoordinated explosion > of these drivers which will take a hell lot mpore effort to clean up > after the fact. I could be wrong and these could actually be > different enough to justify separate drivers and there isn't gonna be > an avalanche of these but again I at least want to know the general > direction things are headed before making any decisions. I'd be happy to pour it in any form that's needed. I even do the modification/rewrite of ahci_platform if I get enough help as it might be a little over my head initially ;) That said, I don't think it's much different at all and I do think it could be much simpler. In my mind, the sunxi_ahci driver wouldn't need to be much bigger then a few lines that are specific to the SoC (hardware init) and registerd to the ahci_platform framework via platform_ahci_register() instead of platform_device_register(). But again, point me (for dummies ;) in the right direction and I'll work on it with some help. Oliver > > Thanks. > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932377Ab3LDNSQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Dec 2013 08:18:16 -0500 Received: from 7of9.schinagl.nl ([88.159.158.68]:34817 "EHLO 7of9.schinagl.nl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755613Ab3LDNSP (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Dec 2013 08:18:15 -0500 Message-ID: <529F2B41.8090009@schinagl.nl> Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 14:16:49 +0100 From: Olliver Schinagl User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130803 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tejun Heo CC: Oliver Schinagl , grant.likely@linaro.org, "rob.herring@calxeda.com" , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, dev@linux-sunxi.org, maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com, ijc@hellion.org.uk, hdegoede@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ARM: sunxi: Add an ahci-platform compatible AHCI driver for the Allwinner SUNXi series of SoCs References: <1386159055-10264-1-git-send-email-oliver@schinagl.nl> <1386159055-10264-3-git-send-email-oliver@schinagl.nl> <20131204123708.GD3158@htj.dyndns.org> <529F2677.3070208@schinagl.nl> <20131204131402.GG3158@htj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20131204131402.GG3158@htj.dyndns.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 04-12-13 14:14, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 01:56:23PM +0100, Oliver Schinagl wrote: >> I took the imx driver as example, as I wasn't sure on where to >> start. But I don't think it's possible yet without improving >> ahci_platform as I suggested in the cover letter. So if >> ahci_platform needs to be improved, I guess a separate patch series >> would be more appropriate? >> >> So would it be acceptable to have this as the 2nd (and last?) >> ahci_platform driver and go from there? Or do you want to block new >> ahci_XXX drivers until ahci_platform has been improved? > > I don't want to block new drivers unconditionally but at least I want > to know which direction we're headed in the longer term. Right now it > feels like we could be at the beginning of an uncoordinated explosion > of these drivers which will take a hell lot mpore effort to clean up > after the fact. I could be wrong and these could actually be > different enough to justify separate drivers and there isn't gonna be > an avalanche of these but again I at least want to know the general > direction things are headed before making any decisions. I'd be happy to pour it in any form that's needed. I even do the modification/rewrite of ahci_platform if I get enough help as it might be a little over my head initially ;) That said, I don't think it's much different at all and I do think it could be much simpler. In my mind, the sunxi_ahci driver wouldn't need to be much bigger then a few lines that are specific to the SoC (hardware init) and registerd to the ahci_platform framework via platform_ahci_register() instead of platform_device_register(). But again, point me (for dummies ;) in the right direction and I'll work on it with some help. Oliver > > Thanks. >