From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932391Ab3LDNXS (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Dec 2013 08:23:18 -0500 Received: from mail-qa0-f42.google.com ([209.85.216.42]:37315 "EHLO mail-qa0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753679Ab3LDNXQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Dec 2013 08:23:16 -0500 Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 08:23:12 -0500 From: Tejun Heo To: Olliver Schinagl Cc: Oliver Schinagl , grant.likely@linaro.org, "rob.herring@calxeda.com" , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, dev@linux-sunxi.org, maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com, ijc@hellion.org.uk, hdegoede@redhat.com, Richard Zhu , Shawn Guo Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ARM: sunxi: Add an ahci-platform compatible AHCI driver for the Allwinner SUNXi series of SoCs Message-ID: <20131204132312.GH3158@htj.dyndns.org> References: <1386159055-10264-1-git-send-email-oliver@schinagl.nl> <1386159055-10264-3-git-send-email-oliver@schinagl.nl> <20131204123708.GD3158@htj.dyndns.org> <529F2677.3070208@schinagl.nl> <20131204131402.GG3158@htj.dyndns.org> <529F2B41.8090009@schinagl.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <529F2B41.8090009@schinagl.nl> 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 Hello, (cc'ing Richard and Shawn, hi!) On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 02:16:49PM +0100, Olliver Schinagl wrote: > On 04-12-13 14:14, Tejun Heo wrote: > >Hello, > > > >On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 01:56:23PM +0100, Oliver Schinagl wrote: > >>I took the imx driver as example, as I wasn't sure on where to > >>start. But I don't think it's possible yet without improving > >>ahci_platform as I suggested in the cover letter. So if > >>ahci_platform needs to be improved, I guess a separate patch series > >>would be more appropriate? > >> > >>So would it be acceptable to have this as the 2nd (and last?) > >>ahci_platform driver and go from there? Or do you want to block new > >>ahci_XXX drivers until ahci_platform has been improved? > > > >I don't want to block new drivers unconditionally but at least I want > >to know which direction we're headed in the longer term. Right now it > >feels like we could be at the beginning of an uncoordinated explosion > >of these drivers which will take a hell lot mpore effort to clean up > >after the fact. I could be wrong and these could actually be > >different enough to justify separate drivers and there isn't gonna be > >an avalanche of these but again I at least want to know the general > >direction things are headed before making any decisions. > I'd be happy to pour it in any form that's needed. I even do the > modification/rewrite of ahci_platform if I get enough help as it > might be a little over my head initially ;) > > That said, I don't think it's much different at all and I do think > it could be much simpler. In my mind, the sunxi_ahci driver wouldn't > need to be much bigger then a few lines that are specific to the SoC > (hardware init) and registerd to the ahci_platform framework via > platform_ahci_register() instead of platform_device_register(). > > But again, point me (for dummies ;) in the right direction and I'll > work on it with some help. Richard and Shawn recently worked on ahci_imx. Can you guys please talk with each other and figure out what can be done to share as much as possible among these new platform-specific drivers? I'd really like to see the common things factored out as much as possible with only the actual hardware differences described for each device. Thanks a lot! -- tejun