On Mon, 2012-10-08 at 18:57 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > I agree that there are some parts of your approach which might be having > few advantages. But it is actually adding more complexity without much > need of it. Logically speaking, we never had two devices for the same > dma controller. We are adding them just to have pci over platform.. Which > would mean the system become more and more complex.. > > So, during run time... > - there will be two device-driver binding loops.. Once for pci and then for > platform > - In suspend/resume... two devices will get into suspend, instead of one.. > - There might be other frameworks in kernel.. which react on struct device > basis... they will get affected too.. > - You have larger image size for pci case. as you compile platform too.. > > Just try to think from this perspective... we dont have two hardware devices > in the system.... Ideally speaking there must be a struct device associated > with a hardware device... > > @Arnd/Vinod: Can you guys throw some more light here.. on the adv/disadv > of both the approaches? I am worried about those tow. Runtime PM handlers in case PCI devices make life a lot easier am not sure what support will be there for platform devices in other systems. Also next version of this h/w on our systems is bringing subtle changes so having them separate seemed to me a better idea.
-- Vinod Koul Intel Corp. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/