On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Linus Walleij <linus.wall...@linaro.org> wrote:
> 2011/8/10 Jassi Brar <jassisinghb...@gmail.com>:
>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Linus Walleij <linus.wall...@linaro.org>
>> wrote:
>>>> Linus W, was there anything you said wouldn't work with the scheme ?
>>>> Please tell now on the record.
>>>
>>> It would *work* but the current proposal is *not elegant* IMO.
>>
>> would *work* -> You could find no case that the scheme wouldn't support.
>
> Well there is the usecase where we have a lot of devices, but it is
> true we don't have that kind of hardware around.
I am pissed off by Russell's allegation that
{
Linus had not agreed to your proposal and saw more or less the same
problems with it which I've been on at you about via your other email
alias/lkml.
}
whereas what you say now, and when we discussed, does not repeat a single
concern of his!
You never say/said what 'problem' do you see.
Russell has been skeptical if my idea would work at all for his
versatile setups.
While you say it would *work* but you just want the idea implemented
using device pointer and strings !
Btw, do bring on any esoteric setup that you have in mind even if you never
expect to have it in real.
I am not married to my idea. I don't wanna push any further if it wouldn't work.
The biggest challenge I see is the huge modification needed. Not some
weird setup !
>> Client having to specify the device it wants a channel for, is a
>> waste - otherwise we don't fully get rid of platform assistance for
>> channel selection!
>
> I think I saw you proposal define REQ(MMC,2) for example,
> isn't that specifying the device?
Not using platform provided device pointers, but by using globally
defined values. (See my last reply to Vinod's setup
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2011-August/060860.html)
The notion of "must-use" device pointer sucks!
More so when we can have simpler and at least as good implementation
without using them !
Do you have any reason for using device pointer and strings, other
than just "because clock and regulator use them" ??
>>> rxc = dma_request_slave_channel(dev, "MMC-RX");
>>> txc = dma_request_slave_channel(dev, "MMC-TX");
>>
>> Absolutely "not-very-good" !
>> We can do without the 'dev' argument.
>
> You still need to pass in something referring you back to
> the device.
Nopes. As I said please see my reply to Vinod's setup.
>> Do you propose to implement a string parser in the core ?!
>
> Yes, the clock and regulator framework already does that.
> But it is only used when you cannot pass in a struct device *
> directly, like from device tree.
Dude, I have utter disrespect for using strings in a case such as
expressing requirements.
I have already explained how we can easily and in a _better_ way
do without them (again see my last reply to Vindo's setup).
Tell me 1 reason why using strings, in this case, would be better ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a FREE DOWNLOAD! and learn more about uberSVN rich system,
user administration capabilities and model configuration. Take
the hassle out of deploying and managing Subversion and the
tools developers use with it.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/wandisco-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
spi-devel-general mailing list
spi-devel-general@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spi-devel-general
