Anton Vorontsov wrote:
>>>Remaining question: any preferred name for that property? pio-mode okay?
>>>It's assuming that PIO6 capable bus supports PIO0 as well, thus no mask.
>> I've already suggested "generic". A name "simple" also comes to my mind.
> You've misread my question. I didn't ask about driver name, but pio-mode
> property.
I'm OK with "pio-mode" then. Just don't think it makes much sense in the
context of this driver which has no provision for the programming the mode
timings (and if there were some provision, the *generic* platform driver
couldn't handle it anyway).
> As for the driver name, it doesn't matter at all, as I've said already:
> it's Linux specific anyway, and another compatible properties could be
> added at any time, to a device tree and/or to the OF driver itself (if
> some real OpenFirmware will pass some meaningful compatible property
> that we'll have to match in that driver).
> "generic" name is also bad one, it's confusing wrt ata_generic.c
> driver (PCI).
The "compatible" property doesn't have to contain the driver name, so
there should be no confusion with the driver names. It's just different name
spaces. :-)
> "simple" name doesn't tell anything at all. So, I'd rather stick with
> -platform name.
Well, those two should be "generic-ata" and "simple-ata" of course. And it
*does* tell that the driver just provides taskfile control, without the
transfer timing control and other fancy stuff...
> Thanks,
MBR, Sergei
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
