From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751972Ab2CPRVS (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Mar 2012 13:21:18 -0400 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21]:37759 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751722Ab2CPRVP (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Mar 2012 13:21:15 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,315,1320652800"; d="scan'208";a="78433293" Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 18:29:08 +0100 From: Samuel Ortiz To: "Manjunathappa, Prakash" Cc: "davinci-linux-open-source@linux.davincidsp.com" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "Nori, Sekhar" , "linux@arm.linux.org.uk" , "dwmw2@infradead.org" , Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] arm:davinci: move emif driver to mfd framework Message-ID: <20120316172908.GG20524@sortiz-mobl> References: <1330005504-25321-3-git-send-email-prakash.pm@ti.com> <20120227142638.GN27687@sortiz-mobl> <20120301112329.GI9008@sortiz-mobl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Prakash, On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 01:12:25PM +0000, Manjunathappa, Prakash wrote: > Hi Samuel, > > May be I did not do a good job giving complete information on this earlier. > So I have replied on top of my mail with below information (seems you missed it) > I did get it, sorry for not being able to reply earlier. > Taking above points into consideration Arnd Bergmann suggested to move AEMIF driver to > MFD framework [1], relevant portion of his mail as follows, > > " If you want it to provide endpoint devices that are handled by > distinct subsystems in Linux, I would make it an mfd multifunction > device and make the common... " You're missing that part of the quote: "...code a driver that scans the connected memories in order to register its child devices for each of the subsystems." If you can do that, then I'd take that patch to the MFD subsystem. Otherwise, the only incentive for me to take it would be to be able to share the 2 functions currently in this driver between several archs. But MFD would just be a placeholder for this driver right now. Cheers, Samuel. -- Intel Open Source Technology Centre http://oss.intel.com/