Re: [MeeGo-Dev][PATCH] Topcliff: Update PCH_PHUB driver to 2.6.35

["Masayuki Ohtake" <masa-korg@dsn.okisemi.com>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Greg KH" <gregkh@suse.de>
To: "Masayuki Ohtake" <masa-korg@dsn.okisemi.com>
Cc: <meego-dev@meego.com>; "LKML" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>; <yong.y.wang@intel.com>; <qi.wang@intel.com>;
<andrew.chih.howe.khor@intel.com>; <arjan@linux.intel.com>; <alan@linux.intel.com>; <margie.foster@intel.com>;
"Morinaga" <morinaga526@dsn.okisemi.com>
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 12:22 AM
Subject: Re: [MeeGo-Dev][PATCH] Topcliff: Update PCH_PHUB driver to 2.6.35


> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 09:25:03PM +0900, Masayuki Ohtake wrote:
> > Please find <MASA>
>
> If someone takes the time to review your code and ask questions, it is
> considered common courtesy to at least answer them all and not ignore
> some of them.  Please do so.
>
> > > >  drivers/misc/Kconfig    |    9 +
> > > >  drivers/misc/Makefile   |    1 +
> > > >  drivers/misc/pch_phub.c |  722 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >  3 files changed, 732 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > > >  create mode 100755 drivers/misc/pch_phub.c
> > >
> > > You forgot to add documentation for your sysfs files in
> > > Documentation/ABI/ which is a requiremend when you add new ones.
> >
> > <MASA>
> > Which folder should we put stable/ or testing/ ?
>
> Which do you feel it should be in?
I think 'testing' is appropriate.

>
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > +/* SROM SPEC for MAC address assignment offset */
> > > > +static const int pch_phub_mac_offset[ETH_ALEN] = {0x3, 0x2, 0x1, 0x0, 0xb, 0xa};
> > > > +
> > > > +static DEFINE_MUTEX(pch_phub_mutex);
> > > > +static struct pch_phub_reg pch_phub_reg;
> > >
> > > So you can only have one of these devices in a system at the same time?
> > > What happens when a machine ships with two of them?
> >
> > <MASA>
> > I can't understand the above questioin meaning.
> > Give me more information, please.
> > What's does the above "these devices" mean?
>
> The device the driver is controlling.  What happens when this driver
> runs on a system that has 2 of these devices?  You need to be able to
> handle multiple devices, and that doesn't happen with a single variable,
> right?  Please dynamically allocate it and make the lock associated to
> the actual device, not the whole driver, if possible.
I can understand your saying.
But our driver for Topcliff doesn't support multiple device but single device only.
>From LSI structure point of view, I think, it is impossible that topcliff is used as multiple devices.
None the less, should our driver support multiple device ?

Thanks, Ohtake(OKISEMI)