From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S932779AbdJaTpb (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 31 Oct 2017 15:45:31 -0400
Received: from mail-oi0-f67.google.com ([209.85.218.67]:44946 "EHLO
        mail-oi0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S932583AbdJaTp3 (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 31 Oct 2017 15:45:29 -0400
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+SB06pW6Z9DAlpZihqjEL2+VjxfZmZ7qd5PPWzZLja0wglT5YwLoiVYsE8prm4rYp764IaAHA==
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] staging: ion: create one device entry per heap
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@linaro.org>,
        sumit.semwal@linaro.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, arve@android.com,
        riandrews@android.com, dan.carpenter@oracle.com,
        devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org
References: <1508774137-13835-1-git-send-email-benjamin.gaignard@linaro.org>
 <1508774137-13835-3-git-send-email-benjamin.gaignard@linaro.org>
 <3e3af8e3-76c5-754c-caaa-3f8c9b54723f@redhat.com>
 <20171031191153.avolosp6n5gb3xao@sirena.co.uk>
From: Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <75c8c6ac-2f56-f477-8fcd-794504499111@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 12:45:25 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20171031191153.avolosp6n5gb3xao@sirena.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 10/31/2017 12:11 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 12:03:35PM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote:
> 
>> I'm not a fan of the platform bus but I have mixed feelings about
>> creating a dedicated bus type. I guess if we really need a bus
>> type we can do it later?
> 
> There was a discussion a while ago in the context of I2C/SPI MFDs
> which concluded that if you need a bus and it's going to be effectively
> noop then you should just use the platform bus as anything else will
> consist almost entirely of cut'n'paste from the platform bus with some
> light sed usage and code duplication is bad.  It's not super lovely as
> it's not actually a memory mapped device but it's the best idea we've
> got.
> 

Thanks for the pointer.