On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Anton Vorontsov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 11:36:09AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Anton Vorontsov >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Well, I mentioned the usb_add_hcd()-alike approach for the mmc_spi >> > host... The absence of enthusiasm I equaled to "no". >> > >> > Heh. >> >> I'm allergic to USB HCD code; I was probably having convulsions under my >> desk. > > :-) > > Ok, I also mentioned drivers/ata/pata_of_platform.c (OF version is using > common code from drivers/ata/pata_platform.c). > > Please look there, and tell me if this is what you have in mind. (ignore > _probe in the __pata_platform_probe name. Imagine > pata_platform_add_controller or something).
Yes, I like that. I've done something very similar for drivers with both of and non-of bindings. For another example, this time all contained within a single .c file, see drivers/video/xilinxfb.c >> > p.s. >> > Btw, you forgot another downside of v2 approach: struct spi_driver >> > duplication... Not sure if everyone will be happy about it. >> > >> > Though, v2 is only version where we can make modular OF_MMC_SPI. >> >> I think we've got our wires crossed. I'm not referring to the option >> of an of_mmc_spi driver registering an mmc_spi device (which can then >> be probed by the mmc_spi_driver). > > I'm not refrering to this option either. Okay, I'm confused then. Where is the duplication of struct spi_driver? Cheers, g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
