From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759334Ab0J1QKV (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Oct 2010 12:10:21 -0400 Received: from devils.ext.ti.com ([198.47.26.153]:53146 "EHLO devils.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756140Ab0J1QKR (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Oct 2010 12:10:17 -0400 Message-ID: <4CC9A03F.80401@ti.com> Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 12:09:35 -0400 From: Cyril Chemparathy Reply-To: cyril@ti.com Organization: Texas Instruments User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.14) Gecko/20101006 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linus Walleij CC: "davinci-linux-open-source@linux.davincidsp.com" , "spi-devel-general@lists.sourceforge.net" , "broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com" , "lrg@slimlogic.co.uk" , "dbrownell@users.sourceforge.net" , "grant.likely@secretlab.ca" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "rpurdie@rpsys.net" , Samuel Ortiz , Alan Cox Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 01/12] misc: add driver for sequencer serial port References: <1288124308-14999-1-git-send-email-cyril@ti.com> <1288124308-14999-2-git-send-email-cyril@ti.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/28/2010 11:49 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: > 2010/10/26 Cyril Chemparathy : > >> TI's sequencer serial port (TI-SSP) is a jack-of-all-trades type of serial port >> device. It has a built-in programmable execution engine that can be programmed >> to operate as almost any serial bus (I2C, SPI, EasyScale, and others). >> >> This patch adds a driver for this controller device. The driver does not >> expose a user-land interface. Protocol drivers built on top of this layer are >> expected to remain in-kernel. > > Why is this thing in drivers/misc? > > drivers/mfd is IMHO the apropriate place for a driver like this, and > the subdrivers should be migrated to use mfd cells and platform > drivers for the subdevices. > > All functions and abstractions you create here look suspiciously > lot like other MFD devices. > > But please, beat me up if I'm wrong! Alan had raised the same concern earlier, and my response was: > Unlike MFDs, this device doesn't have cells with differing > functionality. Instead it has functionally identical ports that can > operate in a variety of modes. That said, does this still fit in with > other MFD drivers? If so, I don't see a problem with moving it there. I don't see a problem with moving this into MFD, but this won't be able to use any of the functionality provided by mfd-core. Thanks Cyril.