Re: [PATCH RFC V3 2/3] mxs: add driver for ocotp in i.MX23 and i.MX28

[Thierry Reding <thierry.reding-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1806 bytes --]

On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 10:59:33AM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> Hi Stefan, Arnd,
> 
> (I'm trimming the Cc list and adding Thierry and Maxime to the loop):
> 
> On 11/06/2014 04:47 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> [..]
> >>
> >> i don't have a answer to this question, but how about changing fsl_ocotp driver
> >> to driver/soc/mxs/fuse with a similiar binary interface like the tegra ones.
> >>
> >> Does it make sense to you?
> > 
> > I haven't looked at the drivers, so I don't know if the tegra interface
> > is any better or worse than the others. Changing everyone to have the same
> > interface is definitely a good idea, but of course only if the unified
> > interface is a good one ;-)
> > 
> 
> I'm in the process of finding a suitable upstream path for a new eFuse driver
> for fuses used on Imagination Technologies SoCs.
> 
> This was our last proposal, which follows Tegra's work:
> 
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg59246.html
> 
> However, Arnd was reluctant to take yet another efuse driver under drivers/soc
> and proposed instead to try to find a unified API. We've had numerous fuse
> drivers (tegra, sunxi, imx and img) appearing, so his concern certainly makes
> sense.
> 
> I've talked to Arnd on IRC and we agreed to create a new directory
> drivers/efuse. As a first step we would just move the tegra driver,
> and add the new drivers (img on my side, and possibly mxs on Stefan's).
> Perhaps we would also pull the sunxi_sid driver as well.
> 
> Having the drivers together would allow us to come up with a unified API
> as follow up work.
> 
> How does this sound? If you have no objections to this, I can go ahead and
> try to prepare some RFCs.

No objections from me. Adding Peter and linux-tegra for visibility.

Thierry

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]