Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/2] drivers: misc: omap: add a new driver for ocp2scp

[Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1739 bytes --]

Hi,

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 04:26:08PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 25 June 2012, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > > Can't this live where the scp drivers live?  Actually, where is that at?
> > > > Do we have scp drivers?
> > > AFAIK, there isn't any driver for scp. But we have a driver for ocp
> > > and it is present at arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_l3_noc.c
> > 
> > I don't think this deserves a directory of its own. Maybe
> > drivers/platform/arm/omap/ ?? the l3_noc is an OMAP-specific
> > interconnect and the SCP bus is also an OMAP-specific bus. I don't know
> > of any other arch/soc who uses the same interconnect IP as OMAP and the
> > same ocp2scp bridge. That bridge was created by TI for all I know.
> > 
> > Greg, would drivers/platform/arm/omap/ work for you ? We could also move
> > the interconnect drivers there.
> 
> I really don't like the idea of introducing drivers/platform/arm/ because
> very little of the stuff that one would put in there are actually ARM
> specific.
> 
> I have suggested a drivers/bus/ before and people did not see the need
> back then, and we agreed to continue having a directory for each bus,
> as we have for the big ones (pci, usb, i2c, spi, ...) and a lot of
> simple (amba, rapidio, bcma, ...) or obscure (tc,  vlynq, nubus, ...)
> ones.
> 
> I think we should reconsider the idea of drivers/bus/ with a file per
> bus in there at least for new buses, but doing a new drivers/scp/
> would be ok for me if there is enough opposition against the idea
> of drivers/bus aggregating different buses.

I don't mind either way. The fact is that this ocp-to-scp bridge is
really a TI/OMAP thing. Not sure it deserves a directory of its own.

-- 
balbi

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]