Re: [PATCH 1/2] [IDE] Platform IDE driver

[Segher Boessenkool]

> > More importantly, "reg-shift" doesn't say what part of
> > the bigger words to access.  A common example is byte-wide
> > registers on a 32-bit-only bus; it's about 50%-50% between
> > connecting the registers to the low byte vs. connecting it
> > to the byte with the lowest address.
>
>    We already have "big-endian" prop used in MPIC nodes, IIRC. Could 
> try to "reuse" it here as well...

Sure.  This would be an okay way to handle legacy devices that
are connected in inventive ways: add "reg-shift" and/or "big-endian"
properties.  We should make sure this is documented in the
appropriate bindings though, don't just assume it will work.

For non-legacy devices, please just use the "compatible"
property to figure out the endianness etc.; it is a bad idea
to make a "blablabla-big-endian" compatible value, but you can
almost often just use a more specific model name instead; and
typically the device has some other quirks anyway ;-)

> > It would be nice to not name similar properties in the
> > device tree dissimilarly.  Kernel code doesn't come into
> > the picture here.
>
>    The "reg-shift" prop is yet unaccepted ad-hockery at this point. ;-)
>    So, I don't see why we have to be consistent with it.

Don't treat your ad-hockery ad hoc, that way leads to insanity :-)

It's quite important to use good names for all new properties
you define, so you naturally end up with similar names for
similar purposes.  Of course it isn't a *requirement*, you're
right about that.


Segher

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/