Messages in this thread | | | From | "Masayuki Ohtake" <> | Subject | Re: [MeeGo-Dev][PATCH] Topcliff: Update PCH_SPI driver to 2.6.35 | Date | Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:28:41 +0900 |
| |
----- Original Message ----- From: "Grant Likely" <grant.likely@secretlab.ca> To: "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: "Masayuki Ohtak" <masa-korg@dsn.okisemi.com>; <meego-dev@meego.com>; "LKML" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>; "David Brownell" <dbrownell@users.sourceforge.net>; <qi.wang@intel.com>; <yong.y.wang@intel.com>; <andrew.chih.howe.khor@intel.com>; <arjan@linux.intel.com>; <gregkh@suse.de>; "Tomoya MORINAGA" <morinaga526@dsn.okisemi.com>; "David Woodhouse" <dwmw2@infradead.org>; "Alan Cox" <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2010 4:20 AM Subject: Re: [MeeGo-Dev][PATCH] Topcliff: Update PCH_SPI driver to 2.6.35
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: > > B1;2401;0cOn Fri, 27 Aug 2010, Grant Likely wrote: > >> [cc'ing Thomas Gleixner and David Woodhouse since this driver needs to > >> get some data about the platform (to know what spi_devices are > >> present) and I don't know how that is handled for x86 SoCs.] > > > > The best way to do all this platform specific configuration is to use > > device tree. I really don't want to have x86/mach-xyz/board[A-Z] > > horror, which is unavoidable when we don't get a sensible way to > > configure the boards. > > I knew you were going to say that! :-) > > Ohtak-san, for this patch I'd like you to drop the separate driver > that only registers the spi_devices and just submit the core driver.
Sorry, I can't follow your discussion by lack of SPI knowledge. Which the above mean that "spi_register_board_info" moves to our spi_pch or delete for our driver ?
> (You can of course keep the spi_device registration in your own tree > for debug purposes). I'll expect that the device will get > instantiated using a device tree to determine which spi_devices are > present. The parsing of spi device tree data will be moving into the > core spi subsystem code in the next merge window most likely, so it > can all be handled transparently. > > > SFI was meant to provide a lightweight ACPI, but > > now that device tree is generic and more platforms are using it, I > > really want to standartize on that and forget SFI. > > > > That makes even more sense, as all these AMBA peripherals which are > > duct-taped to a x86 core can be found in other SoCs with different > > cores as well. > > Indeed. BTW, Ohtak-san, is this spi bus device something brand new, > or is it derived from an existing spi device?
Yes, Intel Topcliff is new concept device.
Thanks, Ohtake(OKISEMI)
| |