From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752868Ab1FGKKn (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jun 2011 06:10:43 -0400 Received: from eu1sys200aog106.obsmtp.com ([207.126.144.121]:34496 "EHLO eu1sys200aog106.obsmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752744Ab1FGKKm (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jun 2011 06:10:42 -0400 Message-ID: <4DEDF909.2000608@st.com> Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 15:40:17 +0530 From: viresh kumar User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Morton Cc: Arnd Bergmann , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Armando VISCONTI , Shiraz HASHIM , Vipin KUMAR , Rajeev KUMAR , Deepak SIKRI , Vipul Kumar SAMAR , Amit VIRDI , Pratyush ANAND , Bhupesh SHARMA , "viresh.linux@gmail.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] drivers/pwm st_pwm: Add support for ST's Pulse Width Modulator References: <20110606173339.268b9f9c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <4DEDA12D.6080406@st.com> <201106070928.53761.arnd@arndb.de> In-Reply-To: <201106070928.53761.arnd@arndb.de> 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 06/07/2011 12:58 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 07 June 2011 05:55:25 viresh kumar wrote: >>>> +static int __devinit st_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>> >>> And here things get rather odd. >>> >>> Most of this file is a generic, non-device specific PWM layer, exported >>> to other modules. But then we get into driver bits which are specific >>> to one paritular type of device. Confused - this is like putting the >>> e100 driver inside net/ipv4/tcp.c? >>> >> >> Sorry but i couldn't get this one completely. :( >> Driver is specific to pwm peripheral by ST. This driver can be used for >> SPEAr or may be other SoC or Devices, and is not at all dependent on SPEAr. > > Now i get the question correctly. :) > It was my suggestion to start drivers/pwm/ with this driver. We currently > have a number of pwm drivers spread over the entire tree, all using slight > the same interface header. They all look like this one, and are each used > on one SOC, so you have to choose at compile-time which one to use. > > There are two problems with this of course: > 1. the drivers that export the same interface should be in one directory > 2. there should be a common abstraction layer to avoid duplicate code and > enable building a kernel with multiple PWM drivers builtin. > > Moving this driver to drivers/pwm is the first step to address the > problem 1, we will move the other drivers in the 3.1 or 3.2 timeframe. > > There is independent by Sascha Hauer to work on the abstraction layer > for all the drivers. Once that is in, we will change the individual drivers > in drivers/pwm accordingly. > Above was exactly the reason why i didn't separated framework from device specific part. As soon as framework is pushed, i will update my driver to work with it. -- viresh