From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com (Maxime Ripard) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 10:21:14 +0100 Subject: [PATCH RFC V3 2/3] mxs: add driver for ocotp in i.MX23 and i.MX28 In-Reply-To: <54AE8D45.7050805@imgtec.com> References: <1413628372-2809-1-git-send-email-stefan.wahren@i2se.com> <2223659.OW08fe0cS1@wuerfel> <1003885907.22061.1415301932743.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxbsltgw00.schlund.de> <6087001.lBonPVHV5K@wuerfel> <54AE8D45.7050805@imgtec.com> Message-ID: <20150112092114.GG4891@lukather> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 10:59:33AM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: > Hi Stefan, Arnd, > > (I'm trimming the Cc list and adding Thierry and Maxime to the loop): > > On 11/06/2014 04:47 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > [..] > >> > >> i don't have a answer to this question, but how about changing fsl_ocotp driver > >> to driver/soc/mxs/fuse with a similiar binary interface like the tegra ones. > >> > >> Does it make sense to you? > > > > I haven't looked at the drivers, so I don't know if the tegra interface > > is any better or worse than the others. Changing everyone to have the same > > interface is definitely a good idea, but of course only if the unified > > interface is a good one ;-) > > > > I'm in the process of finding a suitable upstream path for a new eFuse driver > for fuses used on Imagination Technologies SoCs. > > This was our last proposal, which follows Tegra's work: > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg59246.html > > However, Arnd was reluctant to take yet another efuse driver under > drivers/soc and proposed instead to try to find a unified API. We've > had numerous fuse drivers (tegra, sunxi, imx and img) appearing, so > his concern certainly makes sense. > > I've talked to Arnd on IRC and we agreed to create a new directory > drivers/efuse. As a first step we would just move the tegra driver, > and add the new drivers (img on my side, and possibly mxs on > Stefan's). Perhaps we would also pull the sunxi_sid driver as well. > > Having the drivers together would allow us to come up with a unified API > as follow up work. > > How does this sound? If you have no objections to this, I can go > ahead and try to prepare some RFCs. It sounds great :) Could you put me in Cc whenever you send some patches? Thanks! Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: