On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 09:41:02PM +0800, Tabi Timur-B04825 wrote: > Shawn Guo wrote: > >> > > > Between a) making DT enabled SSI driver (mpc version) work for i.mx > > and b) adding DT probe support for imx-ssi driver, I would absolutely > > go for b). Apparently it's much easier. > > Absolutely not! It's ridiculous to have two drivers for the same exact > device that are both device-tree enabled. It's already bad enough that we > have fsl-ssi.c and imx-ssi.c. imx-ssi.c should never have been created, > but there's no way I will approve enhancing imx-ssi.c to also support > device trees, when fsl-ssi.c already does this. > I was not part of creating imx-ssi. But I guess that Sascha (Cc-ed) might have strong reasons for creating it rather than reusing fsl-ssi. I really doubt that missing device-tree on ARM platform is the only reason resulting two ssi drivers.
I'm also not a fan of consolidating device driver between fsl mpc and imx family, especially I had a try on eSDHC and saw something ugly and negative feedback from people. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mmc/7832 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mmc/8202 So unless someone initiates the consolidation of fsl-ssi and imx-ssi, I will keep going option b). If the consolidation is reasonable and possible, it can happen anytime no matter whether device-tree is added for imx-ssi or not. -- Regards, Shawn _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
