From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oliver Schinagl Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ARM: sunxi: Add an ahci-platform compatible AHCI driver for the Allwinner SUNXi series of SoCs Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 13:56:23 +0100 Message-ID: <529F2677.3070208@schinagl.nl> References: <1386159055-10264-1-git-send-email-oliver@schinagl.nl> <1386159055-10264-3-git-send-email-oliver@schinagl.nl> <20131204123708.GD3158@htj.dyndns.org> Reply-To: linux-sunxi-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20131204123708.GD3158-Gd/HAXX7CRxy/B6EtB590w@public.gmane.org> List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: linux-sunxi-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , To: Tejun Heo Cc: grant.likely-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, "rob.herring-bsGFqQB8/DxBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org" , linux-ide-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, dev-3kdeTeqwOZ9EV1b7eY7vFQ@public.gmane.org, maxime.ripard-wi1+55ScJUtKEb57/3fJTNBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org, ijc-KcIKpvwj1kUDXYZnReoRVg@public.gmane.org, hdegoede-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, oliver+list-dxLnbx3+1qmEVqv0pETR8A@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org On 04-12-13 13:37, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 01:10:54PM +0100, oliver-dxLnbx3+1qmEVqv0pETR8A@public.gmane.org wrote: >> From: Oliver Schinagl >> >> This patch adds support for the sunxi series of SoC's by allwinner. It >> plugs into the ahci-platform framework. >> >> Note: Currently it uses a somewhat hackish approach that probably needs >> a lot more work, but does the same as the IMX SoC's. >> >> Signed-off-by: Olliver Schinagl >> --- >> .../devicetree/bindings/ata/ahci-sunxi.txt | 24 ++ >> drivers/ata/Kconfig | 9 + >> drivers/ata/Makefile | 1 + >> drivers/ata/ahci_platform.c | 12 + >> drivers/ata/ahci_sunxi.c | 305 +++++++++++++++++++++ > I'm not really liking the way things are going. Do we really need > separate drivers for each platform ahci implementation. Are they > really that different? Would it be impossible to make ahci_platform > generic enough so that we don't eventually end up with a gazillion > ahci_XXX drivers? I took the imx driver as example, as I wasn't sure on where to start. But I don't think it's possible yet without improving ahci_platform as I suggested in the cover letter. So if ahci_platform needs to be improved, I guess a separate patch series would be more appropriate? So would it be acceptable to have this as the 2nd (and last?) ahci_platform driver and go from there? Or do you want to block new ahci_XXX drivers until ahci_platform has been improved? Oliver >