Re: [PATCH] Driver/IFC: Move Freescale IFC driver to a common driver
On Monday 13 January 2014, Scott Wood wrote: > On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 22:22 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Monday 13 January 2014, Scott Wood wrote: > > > > > > Some of the things behind it are flash, but those portions of the driver > > > are already in drivers/mtd. This is just the common code. > > > > > > > What are the things that are not flash then? > > FPGAs or any other random things that might get connected to it on a > custom board. Ok, that is similar to a number of other external buses then, like the mvebu-devbus.c. I'd suggest you put it in drivers/memory. Arnd -- 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/
Re: [PATCH] Driver/IFC: Move Freescale IFC driver to a common driver
On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 22:22 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Monday 13 January 2014, Scott Wood wrote: > > On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 20:45 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Monday 13 January 2014, Scott Wood wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 14:32 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > > On Monday 13 January 2014, Prabhakar Kushwaha wrote: > > > > > > Freescale IFC controller has been used for mpc8xxx. It will be used > > > > > > for ARM-based SoC as well. This patch moves the driver to > > > > > > driver/misc > > > > > > and fix the header file includes. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Prabhakar Kushwaha > > > > > > > > > > No objections to the driver, but drivers/misc doesn't seem like the > > > > > right place. Why not drivers/mfd or drivers/memory? > > > > > > > > It's not a memory controller in the sense that I think most people would > > > > interpret the phrase, but I guess it's similar in function to > > > > mvebu-devbus. If drivers/memory is broad enough to cover such things, > > > > and doesn't have a memory controller subsystem that drivers are supposed > > > > to register with, then that could work. > > > > > > > > Are things in drivers/mfd expected to interact with mfd-core.c? It's > > > > not clear to me what that does or how it would be useful to the IFC > > > > code. > > > > > > Sorry, I meant mtd not mfd. mtd would make sense if the only devices > > > behind it are things like flash or sram memory. > > > > Some of the things behind it are flash, but those portions of the driver > > are already in drivers/mtd. This is just the common code. > > > > What are the things that are not flash then? FPGAs or any other random things that might get connected to it on a custom board. -Scott -- 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/
Re: [PATCH] Driver/IFC: Move Freescale IFC driver to a common driver
On Monday 13 January 2014, Scott Wood wrote: > On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 20:45 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Monday 13 January 2014, Scott Wood wrote: > > > On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 14:32 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > On Monday 13 January 2014, Prabhakar Kushwaha wrote: > > > > > Freescale IFC controller has been used for mpc8xxx. It will be used > > > > > for ARM-based SoC as well. This patch moves the driver to driver/misc > > > > > and fix the header file includes. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Prabhakar Kushwaha > > > > > > > > No objections to the driver, but drivers/misc doesn't seem like the > > > > right place. Why not drivers/mfd or drivers/memory? > > > > > > It's not a memory controller in the sense that I think most people would > > > interpret the phrase, but I guess it's similar in function to > > > mvebu-devbus. If drivers/memory is broad enough to cover such things, > > > and doesn't have a memory controller subsystem that drivers are supposed > > > to register with, then that could work. > > > > > > Are things in drivers/mfd expected to interact with mfd-core.c? It's > > > not clear to me what that does or how it would be useful to the IFC > > > code. > > > > Sorry, I meant mtd not mfd. mtd would make sense if the only devices > > behind it are things like flash or sram memory. > > Some of the things behind it are flash, but those portions of the driver > are already in drivers/mtd. This is just the common code. > What are the things that are not flash then? Arnd -- 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/
Re: [PATCH] Driver/IFC: Move Freescale IFC driver to a common driver
On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 20:45 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Monday 13 January 2014, Scott Wood wrote: > > On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 14:32 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Monday 13 January 2014, Prabhakar Kushwaha wrote: > > > > Freescale IFC controller has been used for mpc8xxx. It will be used > > > > for ARM-based SoC as well. This patch moves the driver to driver/misc > > > > and fix the header file includes. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Prabhakar Kushwaha > > > > > > No objections to the driver, but drivers/misc doesn't seem like the > > > right place. Why not drivers/mfd or drivers/memory? > > > > It's not a memory controller in the sense that I think most people would > > interpret the phrase, but I guess it's similar in function to > > mvebu-devbus. If drivers/memory is broad enough to cover such things, > > and doesn't have a memory controller subsystem that drivers are supposed > > to register with, then that could work. > > > > Are things in drivers/mfd expected to interact with mfd-core.c? It's > > not clear to me what that does or how it would be useful to the IFC > > code. > > Sorry, I meant mtd not mfd. mtd would make sense if the only devices > behind it are things like flash or sram memory. Some of the things behind it are flash, but those portions of the driver are already in drivers/mtd. This is just the common code. -Scott -- 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/
Re: [PATCH] Driver/IFC: Move Freescale IFC driver to a common driver
On Monday 13 January 2014, Scott Wood wrote: > On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 14:32 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Monday 13 January 2014, Prabhakar Kushwaha wrote: > > > Freescale IFC controller has been used for mpc8xxx. It will be used > > > for ARM-based SoC as well. This patch moves the driver to driver/misc > > > and fix the header file includes. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Prabhakar Kushwaha > > > > No objections to the driver, but drivers/misc doesn't seem like the > > right place. Why not drivers/mfd or drivers/memory? > > It's not a memory controller in the sense that I think most people would > interpret the phrase, but I guess it's similar in function to > mvebu-devbus. If drivers/memory is broad enough to cover such things, > and doesn't have a memory controller subsystem that drivers are supposed > to register with, then that could work. > > Are things in drivers/mfd expected to interact with mfd-core.c? It's > not clear to me what that does or how it would be useful to the IFC > code. Sorry, I meant mtd not mfd. mtd would make sense if the only devices behind it are things like flash or sram memory. Arnd -- 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/
Re: [PATCH] Driver/IFC: Move Freescale IFC driver to a common driver
On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 14:32 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Monday 13 January 2014, Prabhakar Kushwaha wrote: > > Freescale IFC controller has been used for mpc8xxx. It will be used > > for ARM-based SoC as well. This patch moves the driver to driver/misc > > and fix the header file includes. > > > > Signed-off-by: Prabhakar Kushwaha > > No objections to the driver, but drivers/misc doesn't seem like the > right place. Why not drivers/mfd or drivers/memory? It's not a memory controller in the sense that I think most people would interpret the phrase, but I guess it's similar in function to mvebu-devbus. If drivers/memory is broad enough to cover such things, and doesn't have a memory controller subsystem that drivers are supposed to register with, then that could work. Are things in drivers/mfd expected to interact with mfd-core.c? It's not clear to me what that does or how it would be useful to the IFC code. -Scott -- 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/
Re: [PATCH] Driver/IFC: Move Freescale IFC driver to a common driver
On Monday 13 January 2014, Prabhakar Kushwaha wrote: > Freescale IFC controller has been used for mpc8xxx. It will be used > for ARM-based SoC as well. This patch moves the driver to driver/misc > and fix the header file includes. > > Signed-off-by: Prabhakar Kushwaha No objections to the driver, but drivers/misc doesn't seem like the right place. Why not drivers/mfd or drivers/memory? You should also find a new place for the binding file, which is currently in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/powerpc/fsl/ifc.txt. Arnd -- 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/
