From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sameo@linux.intel.com (Samuel Ortiz) Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 22:24:06 +0200 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: <20110522202405.GF18610@sortiz-mobl> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Arnd, On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 10:33:53PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Saturday 14 May 2011, Mark Brown wrote: > > > Will a misc device be a better choice. > > > > > In that case I can remove the MFD cell from the board_file and add an array > > > of platform_device for the UART & CAN. > > > > I think that for me so long as it can simultaneously do two unrelated > > functions which need to be arbitrated between there's probably a place > > for it in MFD, certainly at the minute. > > 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. > I agree with that. Although if it makes it to drivers/mfd/, I'd prefer to see it using the MF API. > 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. > > 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. That's certainly right. Cheers, Samuel. -- Intel Open Source Technology Centre http://oss.intel.com/