From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from az33egw01.freescale.net (az33egw01.freescale.net [192.88.158.102]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "az33egw01.freescale.net", Issuer "Thawte Premium Server CA" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 570EADDECA for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2007 04:39:28 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <46A798D8.7020906@freescale.com> Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:39:20 -0500 From: Scott Wood MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sergei Shtylyov Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] [POWERPC] MPC8349E-mITX: use platform IDE driver for CF interface References: <20070725165318.5331.23795.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <20070725165326.5331.19920.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <46A78322.3080607@ru.mvista.com> <46A78E3F.1030904@ru.mvista.com> <20070725180145.GA29689@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> <46A7941F.2050300@ru.mvista.com> In-Reply-To: <46A7941F.2050300@ru.mvista.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > Hello. > > Scott Wood wrote: > >>> Also, what mmio-ide in the compat properly means in the context of >>> ide_platform which is able to handle both port and memory mapped IDE. > > >> I/O-space is only valid in the context of PCI, ISA, or similar buses, and >> the bus-specific reg format indicates whether it's mmio-space or >> io-space. > > You could save time on lecturing me (and use it to look on the driver > ;-). Sorry, I misread the question as being a mismatch between the capabilities of the device binding and the driver, not about the specific compatible name. Something like "generic-ide" would probably be better. >> What is board specific about a set of standard IDE registers at a given > > The regisrer mapping used is highly non-standard. The gap between registers is nonstandard, but that's a fairly common type of noncompliance in embedded-land, and probably merits being supported in a generic way. I wouldn't call it "highly" nonstandard. Is there some other non-standardness that I'm missing? > We're already in board specific code, so why the heck not? :-) > >> various ns16550-compatibles out there as well? > > I never suggested that -- what I did suggest was make of_serial.c > recognize certain chip types and register them with 8250 driver. What would be the advantage of maintaining a list of chips whose only difference is register spacing, rather than just using reg-shift and being done with it? -Scott