From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754091Ab1BVOoq (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Feb 2011 09:44:46 -0500 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:50761 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753515Ab1BVOop (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Feb 2011 09:44:45 -0500 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 06:37:04 -0800 From: Greg KH To: Subhasish Ghosh Cc: Arnd Bergmann , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Thomas Gleixner , Alan Cox , sachi@mistralsolutions.com, davinci-linux-open-source@linux.davincidsp.com, nsekhar@ti.com, open list , m-watkins@ti.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 13/13] tty: pruss SUART driver Message-ID: <20110222143704.GA978@suse.de> References: <1297435892-28278-1-git-send-email-subhasish@mistralsolutions.com> <20110218143500.23b3044b@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <201102181951.32631.arnd@arndb.de> <9826735BD9DD48A599C595D28C4A05F0@subhasishg> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9826735BD9DD48A599C595D28C4A05F0@subhasishg> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 02:12:32PM +0530, Subhasish Ghosh wrote: > Hello, > > I had kept separate files to affirm the modularity and ease of > portability of the system. > > There are three different interfaces, > 1. The Linux driver interface > 2. The PRU control interface > 3. The McASP serializer interface. > > To maintain modularity, I had classified the files respectively as : > 1. pruss_suart.c > 2. pruss_suart_api.c > 3. pruss_suart_utils.c > > This is not a single device which can be expressed as a single file, > but functionally different devices logically cascaded together to > work in unison. > > We use the PRU for packet processing, but the actual data is > transmitted/received through the > McASP, which we use as a serializer. > > I feel to combine these disparate functionalities into a single file > will not > > 1. Help better understanding the device. I mean, why should a TTY > UART driver be aware of the McASP or the PRU. > 2. In case of a bug in the API layer or McASP, the driver need not > be touched, thus improve maintainability. > 3. If we need to port it to another Linux version, just editing the > driver file should suffice, this will reduce bugs while porting. If your code is in the kernel tree, you do not need to ever port it to a new version, as it will happen automatically as new kernels are released, so this really isn't anything to worry about. > To me, combining all of these into a single file only creates a > mess. This is the reason I had separated them into different files!! > I don't understand why should it be better to have all of these into > a single file. As Alan stated, just use 3 files in the directory with the other drivers, you don't need a subdir for something small like this. thanks, greg k-h From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: gregkh@suse.de (Greg KH) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 06:37:04 -0800 Subject: [PATCH v2 13/13] tty: pruss SUART driver In-Reply-To: <9826735BD9DD48A599C595D28C4A05F0@subhasishg> References: <1297435892-28278-1-git-send-email-subhasish@mistralsolutions.com> <20110218143500.23b3044b@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <201102181951.32631.arnd@arndb.de> <9826735BD9DD48A599C595D28C4A05F0@subhasishg> Message-ID: <20110222143704.GA978@suse.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 02:12:32PM +0530, Subhasish Ghosh wrote: > Hello, > > I had kept separate files to affirm the modularity and ease of > portability of the system. > > There are three different interfaces, > 1. The Linux driver interface > 2. The PRU control interface > 3. The McASP serializer interface. > > To maintain modularity, I had classified the files respectively as : > 1. pruss_suart.c > 2. pruss_suart_api.c > 3. pruss_suart_utils.c > > This is not a single device which can be expressed as a single file, > but functionally different devices logically cascaded together to > work in unison. > > We use the PRU for packet processing, but the actual data is > transmitted/received through the > McASP, which we use as a serializer. > > I feel to combine these disparate functionalities into a single file > will not > > 1. Help better understanding the device. I mean, why should a TTY > UART driver be aware of the McASP or the PRU. > 2. In case of a bug in the API layer or McASP, the driver need not > be touched, thus improve maintainability. > 3. If we need to port it to another Linux version, just editing the > driver file should suffice, this will reduce bugs while porting. If your code is in the kernel tree, you do not need to ever port it to a new version, as it will happen automatically as new kernels are released, so this really isn't anything to worry about. > To me, combining all of these into a single file only creates a > mess. This is the reason I had separated them into different files!! > I don't understand why should it be better to have all of these into > a single file. As Alan stated, just use 3 files in the directory with the other drivers, you don't need a subdir for something small like this. thanks, greg k-h