Morning, Samuel, On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 10:09 +0100, Samuel Ortiz wrote: > Hi Pawell,
Double l in the wrong place ;-) > > 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. Good point. But as this - obviously - won't happen on time for 3.11, I hope you would be kind enough to take the #ifdef patch in for now. > > 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. Ok. Quite conveniently Arnd is the driver/misc maintainer so I'll get first-hand feedback on this. > > > 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 ? http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/185014/focus=185019 > > 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. Ok, so what I'll do: 1. Split vexpress-sysreg into * gpio driver * leds driver * the rest (still in mfd though) 2. Move the vexpress-sysreg "platform management" functions into misc (unless we get any better place for it) 3. Move vexpress-config into drivers/bus as it is (however I see no one in MAINTAINERS for this directory) 4. *Try* to use more of the standard bus (aka bus_type) infrastructure, however this will be the trickiest part of this all - as I've mentioned the code must be functional before SLAB is up... You shall see some patches before 3.11-rc1. Paweł -- 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/
