[PATCH] i2c: devtree-aware iic support for PPC4xx
sr at denx.de
Mon Sep 17 15:34:08 EST 2007
On Sunday 16 September 2007, Eugene Surovegin wrote:
> Hmm, I just noticed that you basically added a copy of existing
> driver with small changes to support OF while keeping OCP one.
> Why not just add OF support to the existing code (under some ifdef),
> and then remove OCP support as soon as ppc -> powerpc transition is
> finished? Why have two almost identical code in the tree?
My understanding was, that adding many #ifdef's into the code was not the
preferred way. I could of course change this patch to not add an additional
driver but extend the existing driver with a bunch of #ifdef's to support
This approach of multiple drivers seems to be common in the kernel right now:
Any other opinions on this? How should this be handled to get accepted
upstream? Two different drivers with removing the "old" one later when
arch/ppc is gone, or one driver which supports both versions and removing the
ocp support in this driver later?
> I also personally don't like this _iic -> _of name change (you
> removed peripheral name and added something which has nothing to do
> with iic, I never heard of OF peripheral in 4xx chips). Whether you
> use OCP or OF to pass a little information is quite irrelevant to the
> iic driver operation.
The "old" name "i2c-ibm_iic" is kind of redundant. Nearly all bus drivers are
named "i2c-platform". Perhaps a better name would be "i2c-ppc4xx" then.
This "of" name was borrowed from already existing device-tree aware drivers
like drivers/mtd/maps/physmap_of.c or drivers/usb/host/ohci-ppc-of.c.
> If you insist on this approach, please add yourself as a maintainer of
> this code, because I'm not going to support two identical copies of my
> code in the kernel tree.
I "insist" in nothing. I'm just trying to get this device-tree aware I2C
driver support upstream.
More information about the Linuxppc-dev