[PATCH v2,5/5] drivers: uio: new driver for fsl_85xx_cache_sram

[Scott Wood]

On Wed, 2020-04-15 at 08:24 -0700, Wang Wenhu wrote:
> +static const struct of_device_id uio_mpc85xx_l2ctlr_of_match[] = {
> +	{	.compatible = "uio,fsl,p2020-l2-cache-controller",	},
> +	{	.compatible = "uio,fsl,p2010-l2-cache-controller",	},
> +	{	.compatible = "uio,fsl,p1020-l2-cache-controller",	},
> +	{	.compatible = "uio,fsl,p1011-l2-cache-controller",	},
> +	{	.compatible = "uio,fsl,p1013-l2-cache-controller",	},
> +	{	.compatible = "uio,fsl,p1022-l2-cache-controller",	},
> +	{	.compatible = "uio,fsl,mpc8548-l2-cache-controller",	},
> +	{	.compatible = "uio,fsl,mpc8544-l2-cache-controller",	},
> +	{	.compatible = "uio,fsl,mpc8572-l2-cache-controller",	},
> +	{	.compatible = "uio,fsl,mpc8536-l2-cache-controller",	},
> +	{	.compatible = "uio,fsl,p1021-l2-cache-controller",	},
> +	{	.compatible = "uio,fsl,p1012-l2-cache-controller",	},
> +	{	.compatible = "uio,fsl,p1025-l2-cache-controller",	},
> +	{	.compatible = "uio,fsl,p1016-l2-cache-controller",	},
> +	{	.compatible = "uio,fsl,p1024-l2-cache-controller",	},
> +	{	.compatible = "uio,fsl,p1015-l2-cache-controller",	},
> +	{	.compatible = "uio,fsl,p1010-l2-cache-controller",	},
> +	{	.compatible = "uio,fsl,bsc9131-l2-cache-controller",	},
> +	{},
> +};

NACK

The device tree describes the hardware, not what driver you want to bind the
hardware to, or how you want to allocate the resources.  And even if defining
nodes for sram allocation were the right way to go, why do you have a separate
compatible for each chip when you're just describing software configuration?

Instead, have module parameters that take the sizes and alignments you'd like
to allocate and expose to userspace.  Better still would be some sort of
dynamic allocation (e.g. open a fd, ioctl to set the requested size/alignment,
if it succeeds you can mmap it, and when the fd is closed the region is
freed).

-Scott