From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown) Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 15:14:46 -0700 Subject: [PATCH v4 01/11] mfd: add pruss mfd driver. In-Reply-To: <201105142233.53659.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1303474109-6212-1-git-send-email-subhasish@mistralsolutions.com> <20110514160126.GA2791@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <201105142233.53659.arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: <20110514221445.GB21792@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 10:33:53PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > I guess drivers/mfd would be a better place than drivers/misc, but it might not > need to be an mfd driver in the sense that it registers mfd cells. Yes, it might be more sensible to just open code. OTOH mfd_cell is marginally easier to use. > The more important point is to remove the device registration from the board > file. You definitely should not have the cells in the board file, but replacing > them with platform devices in the board file makes it no better. Agreed entirely, it should be something higher level than that. > My whole point has been that you register them from the main pruss driver > based on run-time data instead of compile-time pre-configured stuff in the > board file. I'm not so sure - if the usage is fixed as a result of the pins on the device being wired a CAN bus then it seems reasonable to tell the system about that so it'll stop the user trying to run SPI or something against it at runtime.