From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <502D201E.9030304@codethink.co.uk> Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:30:22 +0100 From: Ian Molton MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] mv643xx.c: Add basic device tree support. References: <1344350092-24050-1-git-send-email-ian.molton@codethink.co.uk> <201208091143.32972.arnd@arndb.de> <5023D577.8090001@codethink.co.uk> <201208101049.57586.arnd@arndb.de> <5028D040.60604@codethink.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <5028D040.60604@codethink.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com, andrew@lunn.ch, netdev@vger.kernel.org, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, David Miller , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Ping :) Can we get some consensus on the right approach here? I'm loathe to code this if its going to be rejected. I'd prefer the driver to be properly split so we dont have the MDIO driver mapping the ethernet drivers address spaces, but if thats not going to be merged, I'm not feeling like doing the work for nothing. If the driver is to use the overlapping-address mapped-by-the-mdio scheme, then so be it, but I could do with knowing. Another point against the latter scheme is that the MDIO driver could sensibly be used (the block is identical) on the ArmadaXP, which has 4 ethernet blocks rather than two, yet grouped in two pairs with a discontiguous address range. I'd like to get this moved along as soon as possible though. -Ian