From: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@pengutronix.de>
To: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, devicetree-discuss@ozlabs.org,
linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] misc/at24: add experimental OF support for the generic eeprom driver
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 22:48:08 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091008204808.GB8116@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fa686aa40910080737l5b21654cw9c8f7426f9faf7c3@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1237 bytes --]
> I think in general, this is the right direction; but I'm not convinced
> that the right pattern or form has been found yet. What I don't like
> on this particular patch is that it still hooks of-specific stuff into
> an arbitrary point in the probe routine.
>
> I'd like to see some pattern for retrieving or populating a
> platform_data structure when one isn't already provided, and
> regardless of the data source.
I thought about this, too. I just wondered how many drivers would actually need
a 'pdata'-preparation routine before probe, and if this would not cause too
much overhead for those who don't. But as you say OF might not the only case
where this is needed, then it might be a reasonable choice to have an extra
call fot setting up pdata. Then again, if we have preparation routines for
OF,UEFI,... for each and every driver, uh, the bloat :(
> will take a bit of experimentation to come up with the best form for
> the pdata fetching function, but it will be better contained if it is
> all at a single place.
I might have a try :)
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-10-08 20:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-10-08 14:04 [RFC] misc/at24: add experimental OF support for the generic eeprom driver Wolfram Sang
2009-10-08 14:33 ` Anton Vorontsov
2009-10-08 14:53 ` Grant Likely
2009-10-08 15:10 ` Anton Vorontsov
2009-10-08 15:48 ` Grant Likely
2009-10-08 20:27 ` Wolfram Sang
2009-10-09 5:14 ` Wolfram Sang
2009-10-09 5:40 ` Grant Likely
2009-10-09 14:01 ` Nate Case
2009-10-09 16:09 ` Grant Likely
2009-10-09 16:20 ` Wolfram Sang
2009-10-09 13:43 ` Nate Case
2009-10-09 16:12 ` Wolfram Sang
2009-10-09 16:13 ` Grant Likely
2009-10-08 22:20 ` Anton Vorontsov
2009-10-09 6:37 ` Grant Likely
2009-10-08 14:37 ` Grant Likely
2009-10-08 20:48 ` Wolfram Sang [this message]
2009-10-08 22:59 ` Grant Likely
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20091008204808.GB8116@pengutronix.de \
--to=w.sang@pengutronix.de \
--cc=devicetree-discuss@ozlabs.org \
--cc=grant.likely@secretlab.ca \
--cc=linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).