lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jul]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: MMC: Make the configuration memory resource optional
    On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 02:51:36PM +0100, Ian Molton wrote:
    > Magnus Damm wrote:
    > >Note that I don't need clocklib to get the tmio_mmc driver working for
    > >my platform. It's something _you_ need for the MFD chips. But you seem
    > >to want me to fix it for you even though I don't have any particular
    > >need for it.
    >
    > Actually, the tmio-mmc driver works perfectly on the MFD chips right
    > now. These are the chips it was written to handle.
    >
    And these patches are fixing up the mmc driver to support the non-MFD
    case. If you want to fix up the MFD driver to expose a similar interface
    to the mmc one as what we are doing with the clock framework, that is
    fine, but is likewise an unrelated change.

    Lets evaluate the clock options we have today:

    1) clock framework
    2) clkdev
    3) clocklib

    #1 is what these patches are written for, and the only standard in-tree
    interface that we have cross platform today. #2 could be generalized, but
    that needs discussion by itself, as it was never proposed as a standard
    interface and never submitted to l-k for review. #3 is not in the kernel
    today and it's not clear that it ever will be.

    > YOU want to change it, not me. Don't try to turn the argument around.
    >
    We wish to make constructive changes to the MMC driver to accomodate
    devices you hadn't considered. It is not an MFD in our case, we have no
    ability to test the MFD code, and we will not be making any changes to
    the MFD code. You are the one with the MFD, you get to handle it. While
    we will work with you to make sure nothing on the MFD side breaks,
    holding the MMC driver hostage until MFD is reworked or some random bits
    of unrelated infrastructure are merged is not constructive.

    If you can show what is wrong with how the clock framework is being used
    in the patch that Guennadi posted, we will certainly rework it as
    necessary. However, I will not at this point be merging clkdev in to my
    architecture tree, and clocklib I have never supported. These are things
    that can be done and supported incrementally, but making these
    prerequisites is simply blocking progress, especially when there is no
    consensus on the clkdev/clocklib parts.

    > Can we keep it technical now, please?
    >
    So far you have not produced a technical rebuttal to any of the patches.

    You object to #1 because you think it confuses things, despite the fact
    that in our case this cnf window just doesn't exist at all, and there are
    plenty of existing cases in the kernel today where variable number of
    resources are handled for fairly similar situations. We have no intention
    of pretending the resource exists when it does not. However you want to
    rework the MFD driver to support clocks and power control is entirely up
    to you, but none of that has any real bearing on the MMC driver.

    Your objections to #2 are non-obvious, since you haven't stated any other
    than the fact you would like to see it solved using APIs that do not
    exist in the kernel. Perhaps in the long term we can move towards clkdev
    or clocklib if they are proposed as generic interfaces and merged in to
    the kernel at some point in the future, but today the clock framework is
    what we have to work with, and that is what we will be working with.

    If you don't want to expand on either one of those points, then I can
    just include your NAKed-by in the commit logs and we can take it from
    there. You can always maintain a local patchset that drops support for
    non-MFD chips.


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-07-29 22:21    [from the cache]
    ©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean