Re: [PATCH 2/3] ARM: sunxi: Add an ahci-platform compatible AHCIdriver for the Allwinner SUNXi series of SoCs

[Oliver Schinagl]

On 04-12-13 13:37, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 01:10:54PM +0100, oliver@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > From: Oliver Schinagl <oliver@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > This patch adds support for the sunxi series of SoC's by allwinner. It
> > plugs into the ahci-platform framework.
> >
> > Note: Currently it uses a somewhat hackish approach that probably needs
> > a lot more work, but does the same as the IMX SoC's.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Olliver Schinagl <oliver@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   .../devicetree/bindings/ata/ahci-sunxi.txt         |  24 ++
> >   drivers/ata/Kconfig                                |   9 +
> >   drivers/ata/Makefile                               |   1 +
> >   drivers/ata/ahci_platform.c                        |  12 +
> >   drivers/ata/ahci_sunxi.c                           | 305 +++++++++++++++++++++
> I'm not really liking the way things are going.  Do we really need
> separate drivers for each platform ahci implementation.  Are they
> really that different?  Would it be impossible to make ahci_platform
> generic enough so that we don't eventually end up with a gazillion
> ahci_XXX drivers?
I took the imx driver as example, as I wasn't sure on where to start. 
But I don't think it's possible yet without improving ahci_platform as I 
suggested in the cover letter. So if ahci_platform needs to be improved, 
I guess a separate patch series would be more appropriate?

So would it be acceptable to have this as the 2nd (and last?) 
ahci_platform driver and go from there? Or do you want to block new 
ahci_XXX drivers until ahci_platform has been improved?

Oliver
>

--
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/