From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 19:10:07 +0400 From: Anton Vorontsov To: Grant Likely Subject: Re: [RFC] misc/at24: add experimental OF support for the generic eeprom driver Message-ID: <20091008151007.GA21328@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> References: <1255010672-21656-1-git-send-email-w.sang@pengutronix.de> <20091008143301.GA6084@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 In-Reply-To: Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, devicetree-discuss@ozlabs.org, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org Reply-To: avorontsov@ru.mvista.com List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 08:53:46AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: [...] > Please don't. It is such a small amount of code, It's *always* a small amound of code, at a start. Then we get floppy disk drivers and the tty layer. ;-) [...] > Driver writers shouldn't have to > write anything more than a tiny function to populate pdata from the > device tree. Managing that pdata instance needs to be done with > common infrastructure (but I don't have a firm idea about how it > should look yet). In the mean time I think Wolfram's approach has > lower impact. If I wasn't a PPC/OF guy to some degree, I'd hate PPC/OF people for bringing arch-specific details into a generic code... :-P No matter how small the OF code is, I believe we shouldn't put it into the generic code. Take a look at mmc_spi case again, it can be easily extended to any arch, because there is no arch-specific stuff, but a "get/put" pattern for platform data. Thanks, -- Anton Vorontsov email: cbouatmailru@gmail.com irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2