From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.186]:55492 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753442Ab0KPQP4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Nov 2010 11:15:56 -0500 From: Arnd Bergmann To: Jimmy RUBIN Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] MCDE: Add hardware abstraction layer Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 17:16:44 +0100 Cc: "linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-media@vger.kernel.org" , Dan JOHANSSON , Linus WALLEIJ , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" References: <1289390653-6111-1-git-send-email-jimmy.rubin@stericsson.com> <201011161712.31703.arnd@arndb.de> In-Reply-To: <201011161712.31703.arnd@arndb.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201011161716.44542.arnd@arndb.de> List-ID: Sender: sent out too early... On Tuesday 16 November 2010, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > This looks a bit like you actually have multiple interrupt lines > > > multiplexed > > > through a private interrupt controller. Have you considered making this > > > controller > > > a separate device to multiplex the interrupt numbers? > > > > MCDE contains several pipelines, each of them can generate interrupts. > > Since each interrupt comes from the same device there is no need for > > separate devices for interrupt controller. > > Right, so this one and the one above is really a question of how to describe > a pipeline: It may be good to have a source file that only deals with the pipelines and all that they have in common. If you use the same basic pipeline logic for doing multiple different things, this can be used to structure the code more logically. Not sure if this is worth trying, since it might not actually gain all that much in the end Arnd