From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Madhusudhan" Subject: RE: [PATCH v8 2/2] omap hsmmc: adaptation of sdma descriptor autoloading feature Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 19:43:07 -0500 Message-ID: <002c01caee47$6d210650$544ff780@am.dhcp.ti.com> References: <004501caed38$03e7b9f0$544ff780@am.dhcp.ti.com> <000601caee06$b2c8a9b0$544ff780@am.dhcp.ti.com> <4BE4694F.3060901@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from devils.ext.ti.com ([198.47.26.153]:35756 "EHLO devils.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751460Ab0EHAnc (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 May 2010 20:43:32 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4BE4694F.3060901@ti.com> Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org To: 'Nishanth Menon' Cc: "'Shilimkar, Santosh'" , 'kishore kadiyala' , "'S, Venkatraman'" , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk, 'Adrian Hunter' , "'Kadiyala, Kishore'" , 'Tony Lindgren' > >>>> > >>> omap_mmc_platform_data is MMC specific platform data. Why add a SDMA > >>> specific feature capability into it? Even though you add it there, you > >> will > >>> still need to have a cpu check before that can be set in a common > code. > >>> > >> CPU checks are allowed to be in the platform files. That is where such > >> machine/SOC specific differentiation should be done and not in the > device > >> drivers. > >> That way device drivers remains clean and portable. > >> > >> I want to stop this thread here since neither the patch author nor the > >> file > >> maintainer thinks that cpu checks in the device drivers is bad idea. > >> > >> Please decide within yourself and move on. > >> > > > > I am not saying that it is wrong. My point here is that adding this > > particular flag into MMC platform data to differentiate a SDMA specific > > feature which got introduced post certain SOC may not be needed. But you > can > > always post your comments on the list which will be looked at by a wider > > audience and finally the right patch will go in. > Please see [1] for SOC specific feature handling. any reasons we can't > handle it by adding a new feature? > > [1] > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux- > 2.6.git;a=blob;f=arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/cpu.h#l439 > Yes that makes correct sense. Note that these features will exist on omap4 also so handle in a common way. Surely this will be better than adding a flag which does not belong to MMC platform data. Regards, Madhu > -- > Regards, > Nishanth Menon