Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754361Ab0KJEpi (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Nov 2010 23:45:38 -0500 Received: from mail-gy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.160.174]:41986 "EHLO mail-gy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753169Ab0KJEpg (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Nov 2010 23:45:36 -0500 Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 21:45:30 -0700 From: Grant Likely To: David Brownell Cc: davinci-linux-open-source@linux.davincidsp.com, spi-devel-general@lists.sourceforge.net, broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com, lrg@slimlogic.co.uk, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rpurdie@rpsys.net, Cyril Chemparathy Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 08/12] gpio: add ti-ssp gpio driver Message-ID: <20101110044530.GB4110@angua.secretlab.ca> References: <1288124308-14999-9-git-send-email-cyril@ti.com> <956998.65651.qm@web180302.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <956998.65651.qm@web180302.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1554 Lines: 40 On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 07:15:16PM -0700, David Brownell wrote: > > > --- On Tue, 10/26/10, Cyril Chemparathy wrote: > > > From: Cyril Chemparathy > > Subject: [PATCH v4 08/12] gpio: add ti-ssp gpio driver > > On the assumptions you've tested this *AND* will > resubmit with the previously-requested change of > removing all references to non-existent > "virtual"ness in the driver ... I'll likely > add my ack to that resubmitted version > > Also, chip2gpio seems an excessively generic name; > maybe chip2_ti_ssp_gpio or somesuch? > > I'd still be happier seeing this "stack" packaged > as a hardware library called by various drivers > (like GPIO, SPI, etc) rather than a core driver > that's called by other drivers. That seems like > a better structure for various vendors' "SSP" > hardware (multifunction serial interface logic) > since most function drivers just need to poke > the registers a bit differently, and don't have > much to share with a "core driver" beyond a few > setup routines (if that). I thought the point of this device was that a single device hosted a pair of multi-function serial interfaces, with each implementing a separate function. If so, then it makes sense for the base driver to register child devices of the appropriate kinds. g. -- 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/