Hi Prakash, On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 05:44:39AM +0000, Manjunathappa, Prakash wrote: > Hi Samuel, > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 19:56:38, Samuel Ortiz wrote: > [snip] > > So it seems you're passing a platform devices array through your mfd aemif > > platform data pointer. And from what I can see, it's mostly a 1 entry array > > (for the NAND case) or a 2 entries array (for the NAND and NOR case). > > In that case, adding an MFD driver in the middle brings basically nothing > > but > > confusion and overhead (and 200+ lines of code). > > So unless someone explains to me how this is doing any good to the kernel in > > general, I'm not going to take this patchset. > > > > Cheers, > > Samuel. > > > > In this way we trying to isolate future modification of aemif driver not to > depict > as platform code change, the need for this is based on discussion in below > thread > http://davinci-linux-open-source.1494791.n2.nabble.com/PATCH-arm-davinci-configure-davinci-aemif-chipselects-through-OF-tt7059739.html#none > I fail to see how you're going to achieve that with adding an MFD platform device registration in the middle.
> Earlier also concern was expressed to move aemif driver out of arch/arm to > drivers folder. > Here is the link for the same: > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2011-August/037308.html > Since aemif driver supports NAND/NOR devices, we feel MFD is the place holder. I would disagree with that. And it certainly makes sense to move many drivers out of arch/arm into a more appropriate place but I'd like to keep mfd as something else than yet another misc. Cheers, Samuel. -- Intel Open Source Technology Centre http://oss.intel.com/ _______________________________________________ Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list [email protected] http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
