On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 05:04:17PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Sunday 17 July 2011 16:28:39 Shawn Guo wrote: > > 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. > > I think this sort of driver consolidation is generally a good thing, but > it requires that the consolidated driver is clearly better than either > of the two original drivers. People are generally very attached to the > code they maintain and don't like to see their work getting replaced > by the same thing done differently. However, there are lots of > disadvantages to having multiple drivers for the same hardware and > we clearly want to have only one if we only need one. > > How we get there depends a lot on the situation, and with the esdhc > driver, there wasn't that much duplication: Your patch actually > added more code than it removed and it added a number of #ifdef > sections were not present in the original drivers. > Thanks, Arnd. This helped me get a better understanding on the driver consolidation thing.
-- Regards, Shawn _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
