Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 05 Jun 2012 15:21:50 +0200 | From | Marc Kleine-Budde <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC] c_can_pci: generic module for c_can on PCI |
| |
On 06/05/2012 03:13 PM, Alessandro Rubini wrote: >>> My implementation is align to 32, but I'm trying to make a generic PCI >>> wrapper (some other could be aligned to 16) > >> So it means your implementation is also flaky and you are probably >> wasting HW memory space while integrating the Bosch C_CAN module in >> your SoC :) > > Then I may say _your_ implementation is flaky because it wastes one > bit in the address decoder and a lot of logic gates in the data > bus. It's normal to align registers at 32 bits, as it's simpler and > faster. Most SoCs have only 32-bit aligned registers, for a reason. > >> I am not a big fan of adding platform specific flakes in any core >> file, that why we keep the platform file separate from the core >> ones. > > A number of other drivers have a shift parameter, because it's very > common for the hardware integrator to feel free to choose the easiest > wiring for the device. The choice to keep the platform driver > separate from the core driver only adds complication in my opinion: > you need to export 4 symbols and yhen every user must duplicate code > (like federico is replicating theplatform driver in the pci driver). > > I'd really prefer to have the core driver be a platform driver, and > the others just add platform data to describe how it is wired. That's > actually the reason why the platform bus exists. > >> But I will left Marc and Wolfgang to further comment on the same. > > I agree: let them decide.
I personally like the "pci device sets up a platform device" idea.
My question is, is this considered being a good practise?
Marc
-- Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde | Industrial Linux Solutions | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 | Vertretung West/Dortmund | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | http://www.pengutronix.de |
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |