Hi, I'm not exactly sure on what happened to the previous mail that has been sent empty, but anyway:
On Sat, Jul 06, 2013 at 11:18:00AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Saturday 06 July 2013 10:28:04 Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > a) like interrupts, regs, dmas, clocks, pinctrl, reset, pwm: fixed > > > property names > > > > > > regmap = <&at25 0xstart 0xlen>; > > > regmap-names = "mac-address"; > > > > > > b) like gpio, regulator: variable property names > > > > > > mac-storage = <&at25 0xstart 0xlen>; > > > > > > It's unfortunate that we already have examples of both. They are largely > > > equivalent, but the tendency is towards the first. > > > > I don't have a strong feeling for one against another, so whatever works > > best. Both solutions will be a huge improvement anyway > > > > Just out of curiosity, is there any advantages besides having a fixed > > property name to the first solution? > > I think it's mostly for consistency: trying to get most subsystems to > do it the same way to make it easier for people to write dts files. > > A lesser point is that it simplifies the driver code if you don't > have to pass a name. So that leave us with mainly one path to achieve this goal: - Add a regmap-mtd backend - Add DT parsing code for regmap - Move the EEPROM drivers from misc to mtd What other option would we have? I also thought about writing an EEPROM framework of its own, but the line is really thin between a large EEPROM and say a small SPI dataflash, which would make it pretty hard to choose between such a framework and MTD. Thanks, Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
