Re: [PATCH 0/5] mfd: replace IORESOURCE_IO by IORESOURCE_MEM

Russell King
2012-08-07T15:45:24Z

On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 05:22:45PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> And as Arnd pointed out, if resources will be used for various new buses,
> "IORESOURCE_FOO" or "IORESOURCE_OTHER" is a bit vague.
> What about conflicts where one driver means i2c addresses and another
> one means gpio addresses? The resource system will reject them?

I changed the subsequent patch to use IORESOURCE_REG - at least that
better describes what it's for. Maybe IORESOURCE_REGRANGE would be
better (so it can be used for any register range resource on any bus
type) ?

However, one issue that I hope has already been addressed is what space
the ranges are in, and how does a sub-driver get to know that. To put
it another way, how does a sub-driver get to know about the 'base' for
these register ranges. I hope that problem has been thought about in
MFD land _before_ the approach of passing around register ranges
through resources was allowed to happen.

--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/