On 8 October 2012 15:47, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > This approach has the significant differences to proposed before.
I am afraid i didn't get your mail completely. Still i will try based on my understanding. > First of all it will export IP-block relevant functions to the kernel > namespace. I think it is not a good idea to pollute kernel more. So, few routines which are required to be called from probe, suspend/resume and exit would be made non-static... This is what you wanted to say? Hopefully most of the routines would still be declared static in the core file. So IMHO, the simplicity or clarity that new approach gives has more advantages than this aspect. > Moreover the API dependencies disallow transparent build and usage of > the drivers. For example, you can't built-in platform driver and leave > core part as a module. Obviously... Should be done this way only... What if core driver isn't inserted and platform's probe is already called. That's why depends-on should not allow you to make core part as module alone... I couldn't get the issue completely. What's the problem in this approach? > And there is at least one device, Intel Medfield, > where DMA controller is exposed as PCI device on fake PCI bus. In that > case the initialization sequence matters and the easier way is to > provide independent drivers for platform device. Couldn't get this one :( -- viresh -- 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/
