On Thu, 2013-06-13 at 01:13 +0100, Samuel Ortiz wrote: > Now, about the driver itself, besides the really odd code design, the > static variables all over the place, the nasty init hacks and the > unneeded long function names, someone should refresh my memory and explain > to me why is this guy under mfd. I can see it somehow supports IP blocks > providing different functions, but the design is not sharing anything with > most of the rest of the mfd drivers.
I belive the vexpress-sysreg.c is a Multi Function Device by all means. It does so many things that only a water fountain is missing ;-) If you feel strongly about it, I'm ready to split it into mfd_cells and move the gpio and leds code into separate drivers, however I'm not convinced that it's worth the effort. Now, as to the vexpress-config.c... The first time I've posted the series, all parts lived in "driver/misc(/vexpress)", but (if I remember correctly) Arnd had some feelings about "misc" existence at all... I was thinking about a separate directory for random "system/platform/machine configuration" drivers, but the idea didn't get any traction. > Not only that, but the whole vexpress-config code design is not the > nicest piece of code I've ever seen. And I'm usually not picky. e.g. the > whole vexpress-config ad-hoc API is awkward and I wonder if it could be > implemented as a bus instead. Funny you mention this :-) Again, the first version actually was a vexpress-config bus. The feedback was - a whole bus_type is over the top (I'm simplifying the letter slightly but this was the spirit). > FWIW I take the blame here for not reviewing the initial driver > submission that Arnd kindly sent to me...But now that I'm looking at it, > I think it really is on the edge of being staging material. Any thought > on that ? I'm more than happy to improve it. The infrastructure (as in: the hardware) itself is slightly strange and the code pretty much reflects the situation. There is also a very good reason for some of the oddities like static bridges array etc - the infrastructure must be functional very early, long before slab is available (this also caused a lot of issues with the bus-based implementation, as the device model does kmalloc all over the place). So to summarize - I'm open to any suggestions and ready to spend time on this stuff. Regards and thanks for your time! Pawel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
