Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754077Ab0KJGXO (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Nov 2010 01:23:14 -0500 Received: from mail-pv0-f174.google.com ([74.125.83.174]:54667 "EHLO mail-pv0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752358Ab0KJGXN (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Nov 2010 01:23:13 -0500 Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 23:23:10 -0700 From: Grant Likely To: David Brownell Cc: davinci-linux-open-source@linux.davincidsp.com, broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rpurdie@rpsys.net, Cyril Chemparathy , spi-devel-general@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, lrg@slimlogic.co.uk Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 08/12] gpio: add ti-ssp gpio driver Message-ID: <20101110062310.GB7431@angua.secretlab.ca> References: <20101110044530.GB4110@angua.secretlab.ca> <79124.87409.qm@web180307.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <79124.87409.qm@web180307.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: 1429 Lines: 39 On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 10:16:22PM -0800, David Brownell wrote: > > > I thought the point of this device was that a single [SSP] device > > hosted a > > pair of multi-function serial interfaces, with each > > implementing a > > separate function. > > function chosen based on what the board needs. > Codec interface, SPI, GPIO, etc. > > ? If so, then it makes sense for the > > base driver to > > register child devices of the appropriate kinds. > > I'd normally say board setup registers them; a > "core"driver can't know what children would be needed. > > But the point I was making was about code factoring > not driver setup. When the functions don't have > much commonality, they might as well just write to > the relevant registers instead of expecting to have > a non-register programming interface (of dubious > generality of a "core" driver, but much complexity). > > Easier just to have children use registers directly, > in several similar cases. Less overhead, too. I guess it depends on how much overlap/interlock there is between the multiple channels. If there is shared context, then that is a stronger argument for a shared api. Cyril, what say you? 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/