Is there a binding for IORESOURCE_DMA population?

[Shawn Guo]

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 10:57:44PM +0800, Tabi Timur-B04825 wrote:
> 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.
> 
> Not really:
> 
> http://mailman.alsa-project.org/pipermail/alsa-devel/2009-November/023425.html
> 
> Sascha created imx-ssi because he didn't even notice my driver was already 
> there!
> 
> > I really doubt that missing device-tree on ARM platform is the only
> > reason resulting two ssi drivers.
> 
> Yes, it is!  If we had had device tree support on ARM back then, imx-ssi 
> would never have existed.
> 
> > 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
> 
> That feedback would not have stopped me from merging the two.  It looks 
> like some minor concerns that could have been addressed.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> If you try to update the imx-ssi driver to support device trees, you'll 
> have to convince the ASoC team to override my NAKs.
> 
Ok, I will take this as a serious warning, and start evaluating the
driver consolidation.  I will absolutely need you help along the way.
At least, when we get there, I need your favor to test mpc platform,
as I do not have the access at all.

Sigh, that may be the reason people love device tree but hates to work
it out, because before you add actual device tree support, you need to
do consolidation and cleanup stuff first :)

-- 
Regards,
Shawn