On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 4:49:49 PM CET Will Deacon wrote: > On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 04:33:44PM +0000, John Garry wrote: > > On 08/11/2016 16:12, Will Deacon wrote: > > >On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 11:47:07AM +0800, zhichang.yuan wrote: > > >Is there no way to make this slightly more generic, so that it can be > > >re-used elsewhere? For example, if struct extio_ops was common, then > > >you could have the singleton (which maybe should be an interval tree?), > > >type definition, setter function and the BUILD_EXTIO invocations > > >somewhere generic, rather than squirelled away in the arch backend. > > > > > The concern would be that some architecture which uses generic higher-level > > ISA accessor ops, but have IO space, could be affected. > > You're already adding a Kconfig symbol for this stuff, so you can keep > that if you don't want it on other architectures. I'm just arguing that > plumbing drivers directly into arch code via arm64_set_extops is not > something I'm particularly fond of, especially when it looks like it > could be avoided with a small amount of effort. Agreed, I initially suggested putting this into arch/arm64/, but there isn't really a reason why it couldn't just live in lib/ with the header file bits moved to include/asm-generic/io.h which we already use. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
