Re: [PATCH 2/2] [POWERPC] MPC8349E-mITX: use platform IDE driver for CF interface

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Scott Wood wrote:

Scott Wood wrote:

Also, what mmio-ide in the compat properly means in the context of ide_platform which is able to handle both port and memory mapped IDE.

I/O-space is only valid in the context of PCI, ISA, or similar buses, and
the bus-specific reg format indicates whether it's mmio-space or
io-space.

You could save time on lecturing me (and use it to look on the driver ;-).

Sorry, I misread the question as being a mismatch between the capabilities of the device binding and the driver, not about the specific compatible name.

   That too. :-)

Something like "generic-ide" would probably be better.

I strongly disagree with "generic" part. The generic IDE could only be said of 1:1 I/O mapped IDE ports, not about this fancy mapping.

What is board specific about a set of standard IDE registers at a given

   The regisrer mapping used is highly non-standard.

The gap between registers is nonstandard, but that's a fairly common type of noncompliance in embedded-land, and probably merits being

That is only a common variation of embedded non-compliancy (which doesn't make it a compliancy. ;-) There are worse cases in the bi-endian land, even with the standard 8-bit regs and 1-byte stride. *Hopefully*, this driver could also support those...

supported in a generic way.  I wouldn't call it "highly" nonstandard.

Yeah, there are also 8250 "compatible" UARTs that use 32-bit memory accesses, and even worse -- with some registers mapped differently than on 8250 (those can't be called compatible by any means), yet 8250.c drives all of them. I'm not really sure it was such a good idea to merge, say Alchemy UART support into 8250.c.

Is there some other non-standardness that I'm missing?

*Hopefully*, none. The original Kumar's driver pretended to handle byte-lane swapping too (but that was ugly :-).

   We're already in board specific code, so why the heck not? :-)

various ns16550-compatibles out there as well?

I never suggested that -- what I did suggest was make of_serial.c recognize certain chip types and register them with 8250 driver.

What would be the advantage of maintaining a list of chips whose only

Nobody's talking about the advantages, just about the device tree accepted practices (which we've already tried to bypass with MTD node -- causing a lot of bashing until David Woodhouse came to help :-).

difference is register spacing, rather than just using reg-shift and being done with it?

Please read the linuxppc-dev archive's threads following form David's patches. Or maybe Segher could repeat this for you. ;-)

-Scott

MBR, Sergei
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux