[lkml]   [2009]   [Nov]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Patch for MSP430 support on Neuros OSD2 board
    Samuel Ortiz wrote:

    Hi Samuel,

    The reason I used "ifdef" instead of refactoring code is that I don't
    have dm355 board to check nor I'm familiar with this hardware and I was
    afraid to screw up what's already done for dm355.
    Initially I created a completely separate driver (although based on
    dm355) for Neuros, but kernel people told me to combine code with existent.
    - Is it possible to find someone with dm355 hardware to check if didn't
    screw up it?
    - I don't quite understand how to evaluate impact on config_* files, do
    you mean I need to check standard kernel configuration files bundled
    with kernel and make necessary adjustments there?

    Thank you for a quick reply.
    > Hi Andrey,
    > On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 06:17:22PM +0500, Andrey A. Porodko wrote:
    >> Hello,
    >> Here is a patch for MSP430 chip support for Neuros OSD2 (Davinci DM6446
    >> based) board.
    >> Patch made against 2.6.32-rc6 kernel.
    > Thanks for the patch, here are some comments about it:
    > - Renaming a file may be acceptable, but you have to delete the prvious one.
    > Also, as you're changing the Kconfig symbol, you should evaluate the impact on
    > the current users (in config_* files for example).
    > - Then about the code itself: ifdefs as the one you're doing here is not
    > exactly nice, and leads to a lot of code replication and maintenance burden.
    > It seems that you're trying to have a common MSP430 driver support for 2
    > different boards, which is a good idea. The main problem, if I understand it
    > correctly, is those 2 boards are running the same MSP430 HW running different
    > FWs.
    > What I'd really like to see here would be to have a generic MSP430 support.
    > You'd need to define a FW definition structure (it seems it would mostly be
    > GPIO settings), then have different static definitions for every known firmware
    > revision, and finally have a common probe routine that would go through this
    > firmware structure and sets thing accordingly. You would pass the firmware
    > revision you're using from your board definitions, unless there are some
    > registers on that chip that would let us know about this firmware.
    > Cheers,
    > Samuel.

    Best regards
    Andrey A. Porodko

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-11-30 07:41    [W:0.023 / U:38.148 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site