Is there a binding for IORESOURCE_DMA population?

[Shawn Guo]

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 09:41:02PM +0800, Tabi Timur-B04825 wrote:
> Shawn Guo wrote:
> >> >
> > Between a) making DT enabled SSI driver (mpc version) work for i.mx
> > and b) adding DT probe support for imx-ssi driver, I would absolutely
> > go for b).  Apparently it's much easier.
> 
> Absolutely not!  It's ridiculous to have two drivers for the same exact 
> device that are both device-tree enabled.  It's already bad enough that we 
> have fsl-ssi.c and imx-ssi.c.  imx-ssi.c should never have been created, 
> but there's no way I will approve enhancing imx-ssi.c to also support 
> device trees, when fsl-ssi.c already does this.
> 
I was not part of creating imx-ssi.  But I guess that Sascha (Cc-ed)
might have strong reasons for creating it rather than reusing fsl-ssi.
I really doubt that missing device-tree on ARM platform is the only
reason resulting two ssi drivers.

I'm also not a fan of consolidating device driver between fsl mpc and
imx family, especially I had a try on eSDHC and saw something ugly
and negative feedback from people.

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mmc/7832
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mmc/8202

So unless someone initiates the consolidation of fsl-ssi and imx-ssi,
I will keep going option b).  If the consolidation is reasonable and
possible, it can happen anytime no matter whether device-tree is
added for imx-ssi or not.

-- 
Regards,
Shawn