On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 12:18:56PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > 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
Ok, great. As I said previously, this is quite easy to do. > >> > 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? Here it is http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/23/299 + static struct spi_driver of_mmc_spi_driver = { And here http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/24/153 David Brownell says: > The only thing that looks odd to me about this is that the wrapper > is a spi_device rather than an of_device. To me it makes more sense > to just have an of_device setting up the right spi_device. (Though > maybe I missed some discussion about why that can't work.) ^^^ That reminds me v1. Here http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/25/5 you answered though, but there was no bottom line. I hope the bottom line is that we're now all happy to create another spi_driver to handle "OF MMC-o-SPI" devices..? -- Anton Vorontsov email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2 _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
