From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Molton Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 11:09:46 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] mmc: tmio: split core functionality, DMA and MFD glue Message-Id: List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Magnus Damm Cc: Guennadi Liakhovetski , linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, Chris Ball Im fine with it as long as it doesnt complicate my plan to add PXA DMA to the driver. -- Ian Molton Linux, Automotive, and other hacking: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ On 15 March 2011 09:01, Magnus Damm wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Guennadi Liakhovetski > wrote: >> On Sun, 13 Mar 2011, Magnus Damm wrote: >>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 7:48 AM, Guennadi Liakhovetski >>> wrote: >>> > On Sun, 13 Mar 2011, Magnus Damm wrote: >>> >> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Guennadi Liakhovetski >>> >> wrote: >>> >> > TMIO MMC chips contain an SD / SDIO IP core from Panasonic, similar to >>> >> > the one, used in MN5774 and other MN57xx controllers. These IP cores are >>> >> > included in many multifunction devices, in sh-mobile chips from Renesas, >>> >> > in the latter case they can also use DMA. Some sh-mobile implementations >>> >> > also have some other specialities, that MFD-based solutions don't have. >>> >> > This makes supporting all these features in a monolithic driver inconveniet >>> >> > and error-prone. This patch splits the driver into 3 parts: the core, >>> >> > the MFD glue and the DMA support. In case of a modular build, two modules >>> >> > will be built: mmc_tmio_core and mmc_tmio. >>> >> > >>> >> > Signed-off-by: Guennadi Liakhovetski >>> >> > --- > >>> What's the reason behind creating tmio_mmc_core.o instead of simply >>> having tmio_mmc_pio.o + tmio_mmc_dma.o? That must be the most >>> straightforward solution, no? >> >> You mean two kernel modules ..._pio.ko and ..._dma.ko? but why?... I don't >> see any advantages in such a split, besides, they are calling into each >> other ATM. > > Yeah, two kernel modules. That would be the cleanest IMO. But it's not > such a big deal though, if you think this split is the best and > everyone else is happy then I'm fine as well. > > Thanks, > > / magnus >