Re: [PATCH] [RFC v3] OF: OpenFirmware bindings for the mmc_spi driver

["Grant Likely" <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>]

On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Anton Vorontsov
<avorontsov@ru.mvista.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 11:36:09AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Anton Vorontsov
>> <avorontsov@ru.mvista.com> wrote:
>> > Well, I mentioned the usb_add_hcd()-alike approach for the mmc_spi
>> > host... The absence of enthusiasm I equaled to "no".
>> >
>> > Heh.
>>
>> I'm allergic to USB HCD code; I was probably having convulsions under my desk.
>
> :-)
>
> Ok, I also mentioned drivers/ata/pata_of_platform.c (OF version is using
> common code from drivers/ata/pata_platform.c).
>
> Please look there, and tell me if this is what you have in mind. (ignore
> _probe in the __pata_platform_probe name. Imagine
> pata_platform_add_controller or something).

Yes, I like that.  I've done something very similar for drivers with
both of and non-of bindings.  For another example, this time all
contained within a single .c file, see drivers/video/xilinxfb.c

>> > p.s.
>> > Btw, you forgot another downside of v2 approach: struct spi_driver
>> > duplication... Not sure if everyone will be happy about it.
>> >
>> > Though, v2 is only version where we can make modular OF_MMC_SPI.
>>
>> I think we've got our wires crossed.  I'm not referring to the option
>> of an of_mmc_spi driver registering an mmc_spi device (which can then
>> be probed by the mmc_spi_driver).
>
> I'm not refrering to this option either.

Okay, I'm confused then.  Where is the duplication of struct spi_driver?

Cheers,
g.

-- 
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.