aOn Wed, May 28, 2014 at 09:24:05AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > The MEN 14F021P00 Board Management Controller provides an > > > > I2C interface to the host to access the feature implemented in the BMC. > > > > The BMC is a PIC Microntroller assembled on CPCI Card from MEN > > > > Mikroelektronik > > > > and on a few Box/Display Computer. > > > > > > > > Added MFD Core driver, supporting the I2C communication to the device. > > > > > > > > The MFD driver currently supports the following features: > > > > - Watchdog > > > > - LEDs > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Andreas Werner <[email protected]> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/mfd/Kconfig | 12 +++ > > > > drivers/mfd/Makefile | 1 + > > > > drivers/mfd/menf21bmc.c | 220 > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > include/linux/mfd/menf21bmc.h | 31 ++++++ > > > > 4 files changed, 264 insertions(+) > > > > create mode 100644 drivers/mfd/menf21bmc.c > > > > create mode 100644 include/linux/mfd/menf21bmc.h > > [...] > > > > > +static int menf21bmc_write_byte(struct i2c_client *client, u8 val) > > > > +{ > > > > + int ret; > > > > + struct menf21bmc *data = i2c_get_clientdata(client); > > > > + > > > > + mutex_lock(&data->lock); > > > > + ret = i2c_smbus_write_byte(client, val); > > > > + mutex_unlock(&data->lock); > > > > + > > > > + return ret; > > > > +} > > > > > > Didn't we ask you to remove these? Just make the i2c_smbus_* calls > > > from within the driver. The I2C subsystem conducts its own locking. > > > I'm really starting to frown on aggregation for the sake of > > > aggregation. It's just overhead. > > > > > > > Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I remember Guenther asked to retain > > the > > original API, not the remove the "abstraction layer". Once we build a board > > with > > one of these BMCs attached via e.g. SPI we would have to reintroduce it > > anyways, > > in order to re-use these drivers. > > If there are two or more possible interfaces then I agree, these > aggregations would be the best approach. However, as it stands, that's > not currently the case. > > Genuine question; are Men on the verge of building such a board, or > are we talking about 'ifs' and 'maybes'? >
I think it was a missunderstanding. I also thought that i just have to adapt the wrapper to the original API, that is what I did in the patch, and not to delete the functions completly. Anayway, we currently have another project which use a STM32 MCR connected to USB. A nice feature of this STM is to update the firmware using the USB interface. This is easy to implement and fast. We want to use such a functionality in all of our MCRs to easily update the firmware at the customer if we found a bug. We also plan to have a BMC connected to USB. Then we have i2c and USB. Regards Andy > -- > Lee Jones > Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead > Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs > Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
