From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alessandro Rubini Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] c_can_pci: generic module for c_can on PCI Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 18:50:09 +0200 Message-ID: <20120605165008.GA21871@mail.gnudd.com> References: <331ABD5ECB02734CA317220B2BBEABC13E9CB18A@DBDE01.ent.ti.com> <4FCE07EE.40003@pengutronix.de> <4FC135C6.5030206@grandegger.com> <1677842.Pq7naXsvrI@harkonnen> <3650428.HarNR9HfNF@harkonnen> <20120605131337.GA15432@mail.gnudd.com> <20120605133013.GA16108@mail.gnudd.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: mkl@pengutronix.de, bhupesh.sharma@st.com, federico.vaga@gmail.com, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, wg@grandegger.com, giancarlo.asnaghi@st.com, alan@linux.intel.com, linux-can@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: anilkumar@ti.com Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <331ABD5ECB02734CA317220B2BBEABC13E9CB18A@DBDE01.ent.ti.com> Sender: linux-can-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org > I am late to the discussion, is there any specific reason to maintain a > separate platform file (c_can_pci.c). Because it depends on pci and ifdef is bad. > I think 90% of the code is copied from c_can_paltform.c, code > changes will be less if you merge to existing c_can platform driver. Yes, but then we need to ifdef around, which merges two bad files into a single but worse file. But since the only current user of c_can is the platform device, why not merging the platform with the core and having pci just register a platform device? The only problem I see is that we need cooperation, because neither me nor federico have a c_can equipped board besides the pci one. thanks /alessandro