Re: [MeeGo-Dev][PATCH] Topcliff: Update PCH_SPI driver to 2.6.35

[Masayuki Ohtake]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Grant Likely" <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Masayuki Ohtak" <masa-korg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <meego-dev@xxxxxxxxx>; "LKML" <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "David
Brownell" <dbrownell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <qi.wang@xxxxxxxxx>; <yong.y.wang@xxxxxxxxx>;
<andrew.chih.howe.khor@xxxxxxxxx>; <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <gregkh@xxxxxxx>; "Tomoya MORINAGA"
<morinaga526@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "David Woodhouse" <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Alan Cox" <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2010 4:20 AM
Subject: Re: [MeeGo-Dev][PATCH] Topcliff: Update PCH_SPI driver to 2.6.35


> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > B1;2401;0cOn Fri, 27 Aug 2010, Grant Likely wrote:
> >> [cc'ing Thomas Gleixner and David Woodhouse since this driver needs to
> >> get some data about the platform (to know what spi_devices are
> >> present) and I don't know how that is handled for x86 SoCs.]
> >
> > The best way to do all this platform specific configuration is to use
> > device tree. I really don't want to have x86/mach-xyz/board[A-Z]
> > horror, which is unavoidable when we don't get a sensible way to
> > configure the boards.
>
> I knew you were going to say that!  :-)
>
> Ohtak-san, for this patch I'd like you to drop the separate driver
> that only registers the spi_devices and just submit the core driver.

Sorry, I can't follow your discussion by lack of SPI knowledge.
Which the above mean that "spi_register_board_info"  moves to our spi_pch or
delete for our driver ?

> (You can of course keep the spi_device registration in your own tree
> for debug purposes).  I'll expect that the device will get
> instantiated using a device tree to determine which spi_devices are
> present.  The parsing of spi device tree data will be moving into the
> core spi subsystem code in the next merge window most likely, so it
> can all be handled transparently.
>
> > SFI was meant to provide a lightweight ACPI, but
> > now that device tree is generic and more platforms are using it, I
> > really want to standartize on that and forget SFI.
> >
> > That makes even more sense, as all these AMBA peripherals which are
> > duct-taped to a x86 core can be found in other SoCs with different
> > cores as well.
>
> Indeed.  BTW, Ohtak-san, is this spi bus device something brand new,
> or is it derived from an existing spi device?

Yes, Intel Topcliff is new concept device.


Thanks, Ohtake(OKISEMI)


--
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/