From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] MMC: mmci: Provide bindings for Device Tree Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 15:32:44 +0000 Message-ID: <201203151532.44363.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1331734803-17954-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <4F6209DA.1080809@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.10]:58817 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760965Ab2COPdJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:33:09 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4F6209DA.1080809@linaro.org> Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org To: Lee Jones Cc: Per Forlin , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, cjb@laptop.org, niklas.hernaeus@linaro.org, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 15 March 2012, Lee Jones wrote: > > I would like to see what the minimal required change is to support DT > > for mmci without factorization. > > 1. Minimal change in mmci. > > 2. Add mmci_dt.c which contains the DT-populate code. > > > > The factorization could be done as step 2 I think. > > > > What do you say? > > I'm wondering what the difference is as the work has already been done. > > It was Arnd's suggestion to separate out the two types of variants, and > I'm quite fond of the new (fully featured) layout. Right, I usually prefer cleanups or other refactoring to be done first, and then features added on top. You could in theory add have just patches 3/4/5 all applied without the refactoring, but that I would be worried that this causes dependencies between the mmci driver and ux500 specific functionality like the stedma40_filter function. Arnd