From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: robert.jarzmik@free.fr Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] mfd: lubbock_cplds: add lubbock IO board Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:27:28 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <1170550770.470129293.1424093248596.JavaMail.root@zimbra1-e1.priv.proxad.net> References: <20150216130549.GF14545@x1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150216130549.GF14545@x1> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Lee Jones Cc: Rob Herring , Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland , Ian Campbell , Kumar Gala , Daniel Mack , Haojian Zhuang , Samuel Ortiz , Grant Likely , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Arnd Bergmann , Russell King - ARM Linux , Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org ----- Mail original ----- De: "Lee Jones" =C3=80: "Robert Jarzmik" Cc: "Rob Herring" , "Pawel Moll" , "Mark Rutland" , "Ian Campbell" , "Kumar Gala" , "Daniel Mack" = , "Haojian Zhuang" , "Samu= el Ortiz" , "Grant Likely" , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-a= rm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, "Arnd Bergmann" , "Russel= l King - ARM Linux" , "Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov"= Envoy=C3=A9: Lundi 16 F=C3=A9vrier 2015 14:05:49 Objet: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] mfd: lubbock_cplds: add lubbock IO board On Sat, 24 Jan 2015, Robert Jarzmik wrote: > --- > Since v1: change the name from cottula to lubbock_io > Dmitry pointed out the Cottula was the pxa25x family name= , > lubbock was the pxa25x development board name. Therefore the > name was changed to lubbock_io (lubbock IO board) > Are you sure this is what you want to do? We don't usually support > 'boards' per say. Instead we support 'devices', then pull each of > those devices together using some h/w description mechanism. Do you know that : 1) anything under "---" in a commit message is thrown away 2) after v2, we _both_ agreed that the accurate name is "cplds" which exactly what is in this patch (see device registering with lubbock_cplds). 3) there is no more mention of "board" anywhere in the patch core > Besides, this is MFD, where we support single pieces of silicon which > happen to support multiple devices. I definitely don't want to suppo= rt > boards here. > You might want to re-think the naming and your (sales) pitch. I might need help. As for the (sales), no comment. >> +#include > Why have you included this? I don't see the use of the MFD framework > anywhere. So what makes this an MFD? I thought cplds were to be handled by an MFD driver. > I'm going to stop here, as I think I need more of an explanation so > what you're trying to achieve with this driver. Why ? I think things were clear that this driver handles the CPLDs on lubbock board, namely u46 and u52. I don't understand what is wrong with this patch so that you don't want to go forward. -- Robert