From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755963Ab1EWPOK (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 May 2011 11:14:10 -0400 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.187]:51022 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755850Ab1EWPOI (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 May 2011 11:14:08 -0400 From: Arnd Bergmann To: Samuel Ortiz Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 01/11] mfd: add pruss mfd driver. Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 17:13:48 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.37; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Subhasish Ghosh , Mark Brown , "Nori, Sekhar" , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, davinci-linux-open-source@linux.davincidsp.com, sachi@mistralsolutions.com, open list , "Watkins, Melissa" References: <1303474109-6212-1-git-send-email-subhasish@mistralsolutions.com> <201105112203.54838.arnd@arndb.de> <20110522202129.GE18610@sortiz-mobl> In-Reply-To: <20110522202129.GE18610@sortiz-mobl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201105231713.49067.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:E872/9xqeKdbVt+QkwC4BZqZZDnDRgjt1NsgZnrJY6k 6exCPBxMjuSQa/RrZnDJXPo2yiYoWdE1rQ50i5z/uJ6qrXhfQY 6/uogx5IvPCy+Qhk2VrMIAPioRM04IvHCflebi0oeRbaa0f4yy X0GyqQFFF8T5WQCnErJhmzRjwQ2vjboJAI7agPmnKK7nCCUSZz zVzEKibxyhlToDSqaqarg== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Samuel, On Sunday 22 May 2011, Samuel Ortiz wrote: > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 10:03:54PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Wednesday 11 May 2011, Subhasish Ghosh wrote: > > We had a little discussion at the Linaro Developer Summit about your > > driver and mfd drivers in general. There was a general feeling among > > some people (including me) that by the point you dynamically create > > the subdevices, MFD is probably not the right abstraction any more, > > as it does not provide any service that you need. > I agree it's not what it's been designed for. > > > > Instead, maybe you can simply call platform_device_register > > at that stage to create the children and not use MFD at all. > The MFD APIs are slightly easier to use though, imho. > > > > Samuel, can you comment on this as well? Do you still see pruss > > as an MFD driver when the uses are completely dynamic and determined > > by the firmware loaded into it? > Even though that is definitely not a typical MFD use case, I wouldn't object > strongly against it. Right now mfd is probably the least worst choice for this > kind of drivers, which still doesn't make it an ideal situation. Thanks for your input! When you say that MFD APIs are easier to use than platform_device APIs, is that something we should fix with platform devices to make them easier to use? Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 17:13:48 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v4 01/11] mfd: add pruss mfd driver. In-Reply-To: <20110522202129.GE18610@sortiz-mobl> References: <1303474109-6212-1-git-send-email-subhasish@mistralsolutions.com> <201105112203.54838.arnd@arndb.de> <20110522202129.GE18610@sortiz-mobl> Message-ID: <201105231713.49067.arnd@arndb.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Samuel, On Sunday 22 May 2011, Samuel Ortiz wrote: > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 10:03:54PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Wednesday 11 May 2011, Subhasish Ghosh wrote: > > We had a little discussion at the Linaro Developer Summit about your > > driver and mfd drivers in general. There was a general feeling among > > some people (including me) that by the point you dynamically create > > the subdevices, MFD is probably not the right abstraction any more, > > as it does not provide any service that you need. > I agree it's not what it's been designed for. > > > > Instead, maybe you can simply call platform_device_register > > at that stage to create the children and not use MFD at all. > The MFD APIs are slightly easier to use though, imho. > > > > Samuel, can you comment on this as well? Do you still see pruss > > as an MFD driver when the uses are completely dynamic and determined > > by the firmware loaded into it? > Even though that is definitely not a typical MFD use case, I wouldn't object > strongly against it. Right now mfd is probably the least worst choice for this > kind of drivers, which still doesn't make it an ideal situation. Thanks for your input! When you say that MFD APIs are easier to use than platform_device APIs, is that something we should fix with platform devices to make them easier to use? Arnd