Hi Pawell, On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:45:57AM +0100, Pawel Moll wrote: > On Thu, 2013-06-13 at 01:13 +0100, Samuel Ortiz wrote: > > Now, about the driver itself, besides the really odd code design, the > > static variables all over the place, the nasty init hacks and the > > unneeded long function names, someone should refresh my memory and explain > > to me why is this guy under mfd. I can see it somehow supports IP blocks > > providing different functions, but the design is not sharing anything with > > most of the rest of the mfd drivers. > > I belive the vexpress-sysreg.c is a Multi Function Device by all means. > It does so many things that only a water fountain is missing ;-) > > If you feel strongly about it, I'm ready to split it into mfd_cells and > move the gpio and leds code into separate drivers, however I'm not > convinced that it's worth the effort. Well, after seeing your last patch for ifdef'ing the GPIO and LED code, I think it is worth the effort.
> Now, as to the vexpress-config.c... The first time I've posted the > series, all parts lived in "driver/misc(/vexpress)", but (if I remember > correctly) Arnd had some feelings about "misc" existence at all... I was > thinking about a separate directory for random "system/platform/machine > configuration" drivers, but the idea didn't get any traction. drivers/misc would already have been a nicer option imo. > > Not only that, but the whole vexpress-config code design is not the > > nicest piece of code I've ever seen. And I'm usually not picky. e.g. the > > whole vexpress-config ad-hoc API is awkward and I wonder if it could be > > implemented as a bus instead. > > Funny you mention this :-) Again, the first version actually was a > vexpress-config bus. The feedback was - a whole bus_type is over the top > (I'm simplifying the letter slightly but this was the spirit). I think it would make sense to have it under drivers/bus/. It might be a little over the top, but when I look at the current code I'd be really happy to read an over-the-top bus driver instead. At least we'd know straight away what youre trying to achieve with this code and it would probably remove a fair chunk of the weird bridge API (the registering and the function reference stuff). Do you have a reference for the patch first version ? > > FWIW I take the blame here for not reviewing the initial driver > > submission that Arnd kindly sent to me...But now that I'm looking at it, > > I think it really is on the edge of being staging material. Any thought > > on that ? > > I'm more than happy to improve it. The infrastructure (as in: the > hardware) itself is slightly strange and the code pretty much reflects > the situation. There is also a very good reason for some of the oddities > like static bridges array etc - the infrastructure must be functional > very early, long before slab is available (this also caused a lot of > issues with the bus-based implementation, as the device model does > kmalloc all over the place). > > So to summarize - I'm open to any suggestions and ready to spend time on > this stuff. I'd say splitting the sysreg driver and leaving only the MFD bits in the MFD driver would be a first step. Also, re-considering the bus implementation for the config part would also be interesting. I'd be interested in looking at your first version of the patch. > Regards and thanks for your time! Thanks for your understanding. Cheers, Samuel. -- Intel Open Source Technology Centre http://oss.intel.com/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
