Is there a binding for IORESOURCE_DMA population?

[Shawn Guo]

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 05:04:17PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Sunday 17 July 2011 16:28:39 Shawn Guo wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I think this sort of driver consolidation is generally a good thing, but
> it requires that the consolidated driver is clearly better than either
> of the two original drivers. People are generally very attached to the
> code they maintain and don't like to see their work getting replaced
> by the same thing done differently. However, there are lots of
> disadvantages to having multiple drivers for the same hardware and
> we clearly want to have only one if we only need one.
> 
> How we get there depends a lot on the situation, and with the esdhc
> driver, there wasn't that much duplication: Your patch actually
> added more code than it removed and it added a number of #ifdef
> sections were not present in the original drivers.
> 
Thanks, Arnd.  This helped me get a better understanding on the driver
consolidation thing.

-- 
Regards,
Shawn