From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: alchark@gmail.com (Alexey Charkov) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 13:23:29 +0300 Subject: [PATCH 6/6 v2] ARM: Add support for the display controllers in VT8500 and WM8505 In-Reply-To: <201011080947.37522.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1289147348-31969-1-git-send-email-alchark@gmail.com> <1289147348-31969-6-git-send-email-alchark@gmail.com> <201011080947.37522.arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 2010/11/8 Arnd Bergmann : > On Sunday 07 November 2010, Alexey Charkov wrote: >> ?drivers/video/Kconfig ? ? ? ? | ? 26 +++ >> ?drivers/video/Makefile ? ? ? ?| ? ?3 + >> ?drivers/video/vt8500lcdfb.c ? | ?452 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> ?drivers/video/vt8500lcdfb.h ? | ? 34 +++ >> ?drivers/video/wm8505fb.c ? ? ?| ?438 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> ?drivers/video/wm8505fb_regs.h | ? 76 +++++++ >> ?drivers/video/wmt_ge_rops.c ? | ?186 +++++++++++++++++ >> ?drivers/video/wmt_ge_rops.h ? | ? ?5 + > > From a very brief look, the two drivers look rather similar. What is the > reason to have separate drivers instead of just one? > > Could you perhaps take the common parts and move them into a third module > that exports symbols to be used by the two drivers? > Quite frankly, I would say that all SoC framebuffer drivers are quite similar ;-) Register offsets, timing formats, accepted pixel formats, buffer alignment requirements are all different, so I do not really believe that there'd be much benefit from introducing another abstraction level. This is open to debate, of course. Alexey