From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932378Ab3LDM5v (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Dec 2013 07:57:51 -0500 Received: from 7of9.schinagl.nl ([88.159.158.68]:34119 "EHLO 7of9.schinagl.nl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932201Ab3LDM5s (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Dec 2013 07:57:48 -0500 Message-ID: <529F2677.3070208@schinagl.nl> Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 13:56:23 +0100 From: Oliver Schinagl User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130803 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tejun Heo CC: grant.likely@linaro.org, "rob.herring@calxeda.com" , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, dev@linux-sunxi.org, maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com, ijc@hellion.org.uk, hdegoede@redhat.com, oliver+list@schinagl.nl Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ARM: sunxi: Add an ahci-platform compatible AHCI driver for the Allwinner SUNXi series of SoCs References: <1386159055-10264-1-git-send-email-oliver@schinagl.nl> <1386159055-10264-3-git-send-email-oliver@schinagl.nl> <20131204123708.GD3158@htj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20131204123708.GD3158@htj.dyndns.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 04-12-13 13:37, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 01:10:54PM +0100, oliver@schinagl.nl wrote: >> From: Oliver Schinagl >> >> This patch adds support for the sunxi series of SoC's by allwinner. It >> plugs into the ahci-platform framework. >> >> Note: Currently it uses a somewhat hackish approach that probably needs >> a lot more work, but does the same as the IMX SoC's. >> >> Signed-off-by: Olliver Schinagl >> --- >> .../devicetree/bindings/ata/ahci-sunxi.txt | 24 ++ >> drivers/ata/Kconfig | 9 + >> drivers/ata/Makefile | 1 + >> drivers/ata/ahci_platform.c | 12 + >> drivers/ata/ahci_sunxi.c | 305 +++++++++++++++++++++ > I'm not really liking the way things are going. Do we really need > separate drivers for each platform ahci implementation. Are they > really that different? Would it be impossible to make ahci_platform > generic enough so that we don't eventually end up with a gazillion > ahci_XXX drivers? I took the imx driver as example, as I wasn't sure on where to start. But I don't think it's possible yet without improving ahci_platform as I suggested in the cover letter. So if ahci_platform needs to be improved, I guess a separate patch series would be more appropriate? So would it be acceptable to have this as the 2nd (and last?) ahci_platform driver and go from there? Or do you want to block new ahci_XXX drivers until ahci_platform has been improved? Oliver >