On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 12:31 PM, Anton Vorontsov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 = {
Right; I was going down the wrong thought path. I have no problem with this. BTW, while on that topic, I think it is reasonable to roll the members of of_mmc_spi into either the mmc_spi_platform_data or the mmc_spi_host structure. It is just 2 integers and that would eliminate storing driver data pointers in seemingly random places. > 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.) Yeah; I'm not fond of that approach. It incurs runtime cost of multiple 'struct device' for a single device which is unnecessary. > I hope the bottom line is that we're now all happy to create another > spi_driver to handle "OF MMC-o-SPI" devices..? Yes, I'm cool with it. 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
