On Monday 21 April 2008 19:56, Scott Wood wrote: > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 01:34:29PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > Scott Wood was concerned in > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=17490 that the gpio lib > > might be an unnecessary burden for memory-constraint platforms. Should we > > keep two mdio bitbang drivers, one with direct access to the ports and one > > using gpio lib ? The later solves the concurrent access issues present in > > the current fs_enet mdio bitbang driber. > > The memory-constrained platform I had in mind was 8xx, which doesn't use > bitbanged MDIO. It might nice to keep the gpiolib bit separate to avoid > situations such as ep8248e where mdiobb would be the only thing requiring > a gpiolib binding, though -- but it shouldn't be two separate bitbang > drivers, just the existing bitbang driver plus some glue code that binds > it to gpiolib.
I would be fine with that if the glue code wasn't 90% of the whole driver. There is really little (not to say nothing) that can be shared between the two drivers. -- Laurent Pinchart CSE Semaphore Belgium Chaussee de Bruxelles, 732A B-1410 Waterloo Belgium T +32 (2) 387 42 59 F +32 (2) 387 42 75
pgpvN4ocmFtfM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
