From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ag-out-0708.google.com (ag-out-0708.google.com [72.14.246.240]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8C7DDF323 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 04:18:57 +1000 (EST) Received: by ag-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id 8so2503269agc.0 for ; Thu, 05 Jun 2008 11:18:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 12:18:56 -0600 From: "Grant Likely" Sender: glikely@secretlab.ca To: avorontsov@ru.mvista.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC v3] OF: OpenFirmware bindings for the mmc_spi driver In-Reply-To: <20080605180058.GA21429@polina.dev.rtsoft.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 References: <20080605161624.GA517@polina.dev.rtsoft.ru> <20080605172723.GA14514@polina.dev.rtsoft.ru> <20080605180058.GA21429@polina.dev.rtsoft.ru> Cc: David Brownell , Gary Jennejohn , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Guennadi Liakhovetski , Pierre Ossman List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Anton Vorontsov 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 >> 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.