Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 22 Feb 2011 06:37:04 -0800 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 13/13] tty: pruss SUART driver |
| |
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 02:12:32PM +0530, Subhasish Ghosh wrote: > Hello, > > I had kept separate files to affirm the modularity and ease of > portability of the system. > > There are three different interfaces, > 1. The Linux driver interface > 2. The PRU control interface > 3. The McASP serializer interface. > > To maintain modularity, I had classified the files respectively as : > 1. pruss_suart.c > 2. pruss_suart_api.c > 3. pruss_suart_utils.c > > This is not a single device which can be expressed as a single file, > but functionally different devices logically cascaded together to > work in unison. > > We use the PRU for packet processing, but the actual data is > transmitted/received through the > McASP, which we use as a serializer. > > I feel to combine these disparate functionalities into a single file > will not > > 1. Help better understanding the device. I mean, why should a TTY > UART driver be aware of the McASP or the PRU. > 2. In case of a bug in the API layer or McASP, the driver need not > be touched, thus improve maintainability. > 3. If we need to port it to another Linux version, just editing the > driver file should suffice, this will reduce bugs while porting.
If your code is in the kernel tree, you do not need to ever port it to a new version, as it will happen automatically as new kernels are released, so this really isn't anything to worry about.
> To me, combining all of these into a single file only creates a > mess. This is the reason I had separated them into different files!! > I don't understand why should it be better to have all of these into > a single file.
As Alan stated, just use 3 files in the directory with the other drivers, you don't need a subdir for something small like this.
thanks,
greg k-h
| |