Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] mfd: lubbock_cplds: add lubbock IO board

From: robert . jarzmik
Date: Mon Feb 16 2015 - 08:27:37 EST

----- Mail original -----
De: "Lee Jones" <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx>
Ã: "Robert Jarzmik" <robert.jarzmik@xxxxxxx>
Cc: "Rob Herring" <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Pawel Moll" <pawel.moll@xxxxxxx>, "Mark Rutland" <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx>, "Ian Campbell" <ijc+devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Kumar Gala" <galak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Daniel Mack" <daniel@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Haojian Zhuang" <haojian.zhuang@xxxxxxxxx>, "Samuel Ortiz" <sameo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Grant Likely" <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxx>, devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@xxxxxxxx>, "Russell King - ARM Linux" <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov" <dbaryshkov@xxxxxxxxx>
EnvoyÃ: Lundi 16 FÃvrier 2015 14:05:49
Objet: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] mfd: lubbock_cplds: add lubbock IO board

On Sat, 24 Jan 2015, Robert Jarzmik wrote:

> ---
> Since v1: change the name from cottula to lubbock_io
> Dmitry pointed out the Cottula was the pxa25x family name,
> lubbock was the pxa25x development board name. Therefore the
> name was changed to lubbock_io (lubbock IO board)

> Are you sure this is what you want to do? We don't usually support
> 'boards' per say. Instead we support 'devices', then pull each of
> those devices together using some h/w description mechanism.

Do you know that :
1) anything under "---" in a commit message is thrown away
2) after v2, we _both_ agreed that the accurate name is "cplds"
which exactly what is in this patch
(see device registering with lubbock_cplds).
3) there is no more mention of "board" anywhere in the patch core

> Besides, this is MFD, where we support single pieces of silicon which
> happen to support multiple devices. I definitely don't want to support
> boards here.
> You might want to re-think the naming and your (sales) pitch.
I might need help. As for the (sales), no comment.

>> +#include <linux/mfd/core.h>
> Why have you included this? I don't see the use of the MFD framework
> anywhere. So what makes this an MFD?
I thought cplds were to be handled by an MFD driver.

> I'm going to stop here, as I think I need more of an explanation so
> what you're trying to achieve with this driver.
Why ? I think things were clear that this driver handles the CPLDs on
lubbock board, namely u46 and u52. I don't understand what is wrong
with this patch so that you don't want to go forward.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at