Re: [PATCH 07/19] timberdale: mfd_cell is now implicitly available to drivers

[Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de>]

On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 09:59:02PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 08:47:34PM +0200, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
> > > > > What is a "MFD cell pointer" and why is it needed in struct device?
> > > > An MFD cell is an MFD instantiated device.
> > > > MFD (Multi Function Device) drivers instantiate platform devices. Those
> > > > devices drivers sometimes need a platform data pointer, sometimes an MFD
> > > > specific pointer, and sometimes both. Also, some of those drivers have been
> > > > implemented as MFD sub drivers, while others know nothing about MFD and just
> > > > expect a plain platform_data pointer.
> > > 
> > > That sounds like a bug in those drivers, why not fix them to properly
> > > pass in the correct pointer?
> > Because they're drivers for generic IPs, not MFD ones. By forcing them to use
> > MFD specific structure and APIs, we make it more difficult for platform code
> > to instantiate them.
> 
> I agree. What I do on those cases is to have a simple platform_device
> for the core IP driver and use platform_device_id tables to do runtime
> checks of the small differences. If one platform X doesn't use a
> platform_bus, it uses e.g. PCI, then you make a PCI "bridge" which
> allocates a platform_device with the correct name and adds that to the
> driver model.
> 
> See [1] (for the core driver) and [2] (for a PCI bridge driver) for an
> example of what I'm talking about.

Yes, thanks for providing a real example, this is the best way to handle
this.

thanks,

greg k-h