Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] mfd: add support for Diolan DLN-2 devices

[Lee Jones]

On Mon, 01 Sep 2014, Octavian Purdila wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, 01 Sep 2014, Octavian Purdila wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > On Sat, 30 Aug 2014, Octavian Purdila wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> This patch implements the USB part of the Diolan USB-I2C/SPI/GPIO
> >> >> Master Adapter DLN-2. Details about the device can be found here:
> >> >>
> >> >> https://www.diolan.com/i2c/i2c_interface.html.
> >> >>
> >> >> Information about the USB protocol can be found in the Programmer's
> >> >> Reference Manual [1], see section 1.7.
> >> >>
> >> >> Because the hardware has a single transmit endpoint and a single
> >> >> receive endpoint the communication between the various DLN2 drivers
> >> >> and the hardware will be muxed/demuxed by this driver.
> >> >>
> >> >> Each DLN2 module will be identified by the handle field within the DLN2
> >> >> message header. If a DLN2 module issues multiple commands in parallel
> >> >> they will be identified by the echo counter field in the message header.
> >> >>
> >> >> The DLN2 modules can use the dln2_transfer() function to issue a
> >> >> command and wait for its response. They can also register a callback
> >> >> that is going to be called when a specific event id is generated by
> >> >> the device (e.g. GPIO interrupts). The device uses handle 0 for
> >> >> sending events.
> >> >>
> >> >> [1] https://www.diolan.com/downloads/dln-api-manual.pdf
> >> >
> >> > MFD is not a dumping ground for misfit h/w.  Almost all of this code
> >> > looks like it belongs in drivers/usb.  Please move it there.
> >> >
> >>
> >> We initially submitted this driver as a pure USB driver, with our own
> >> module registration mechanism, but during the first round of reviews
> >> people pointed out that a MFD driver is the better approach, and I
> >> agree. I also see that there are already a couple of USB drivers
> >> implemented as MFD drivers.
> >
> > Can you link me to your previous submission please?
> 
> Sure, here it is:
> 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/8/20/228
> 
> >
> >> Do you see a better approach?
> >
> > You should have a small MFD driver which controls resources and
> > registers children.  All other functionality should live in their
> > respective drivers/X locations i.e. USB functionallity should normally
> > live in drivers/usb.
> >
> 
> OK, that sounds better. I am not sure how to handle the registration
> part though, since in this case we need to create the children at
> runtime, from the usb probe routine.
> 
> The only solution I see is to move the driver completely to
> usb/drivers and continue to use the MFD infrastructure. Does that
> sound OK to you?

I have no problem with that.  If this is an MFD driver, it _should_
live in drivers/mfd.  However, all of that USB specific stuff
defiantly should not.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org â Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
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/