Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S936412Ab3DILgh (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Apr 2013 07:36:37 -0400 Received: from mail.active-venture.com ([67.228.131.205]:61912 "EHLO mail.active-venture.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934856Ab3DILgf (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Apr 2013 07:36:35 -0400 X-Originating-IP: 108.223.40.66 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 04:36:39 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck To: Samuel Ortiz Cc: Wim Van Sebroeck , linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E1draig?= Brady Subject: Re: mfd: Core driver for Winbond chips Message-ID: <20130409113639.GA8731@roeck-us.net> References: <1362957300-18223-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <20130322205258.GE7867@spo001.leaseweb.com> <20130323002810.GA26245@roeck-us.net> <20130323174914.GA21563@roeck-us.net> <20130409093700.GM24058@zurbaran> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130409093700.GM24058@zurbaran> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1698 Lines: 39 On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 11:37:01AM +0200, Samuel Ortiz wrote: > Hi Guenter, > > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 10:49:14AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > MFD core driver for various variants of Winbond/Nuvoton SuperIO chips. > > > > Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck > > --- > > drivers/mfd/Kconfig | 22 +++ > > drivers/mfd/Makefile | 1 + > > drivers/mfd/w83627hf-core.c | 324 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > include/linux/mfd/w83627hf.h | 131 +++++++++++++++++ > > 4 files changed, 478 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 drivers/mfd/w83627hf-core.c > > create mode 100644 include/linux/mfd/w83627hf.h > This driver looks overall good to me. Is this your final version, or should I > expect any follow up patch ? > Hi Samuel, I was waiting for feedback from Wim, who submitted a similar driver, about his thoughts. Key question is how to reserve access to the shared resource - either through an exported function in the mfd driver requesting a mutex, or through request_muxed_region(). I am going back and forth myself on which one is better. Maybe it does not really matter, but using a function has the slight advantage that it auto-loads and locks the mfd module while one of its client modules is loaded. If we use request_muxed_region, that is not the case and the client module must use another means to request and lock the mfd module. Maybe you have an opinion ? Thanks, Guenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/