Hi Chia-Wei, [apologies for the re-send, dropping HTML part...] > The Aspeed eSPI controller is slave device to communicate with > the master through the Enhanced Serial Peripheral Interface (eSPI). > All of the four eSPI channels, namely peripheral, virtual wire, > out-of-band, and flash are supported. Great to have this added submitted upstream! A few comments though: > --- > drivers/soc/aspeed/Kconfig | 11 + > drivers/soc/aspeed/Makefile | 1 + > drivers/soc/aspeed/aspeed-espi-ctrl.c | 205 +++++++++ > drivers/soc/aspeed/aspeed-espi-ctrl.h | 304 ++++++++++++ > drivers/soc/aspeed/aspeed-espi-flash.h | 380 +++++++++++++++ > drivers/soc/aspeed/aspeed-espi-ioc.h | 153 +++++++ > drivers/soc/aspeed/aspeed-espi-oob.h | 611 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > drivers/soc/aspeed/aspeed-espi-perif.h | 539 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > drivers/soc/aspeed/aspeed-espi-vw.h | 142 ++++++ This structure is a bit odd - you have the one -crtl.c file, which defines the actual driver, but then a bunch of headers that contain more code than header-type definitions. Is there any reason that -flash, -ioc, -oob, -perif and -vw components can't be standard .c files? Then, for the userspace ABI: it looks like you're exposing everything through new device-specific ioctls. Would it not make more sense to use existing interfaces? For example, the virtual wire bits could be regular GPIOs; the flash interface could be a mtd or block device. I understand that we'll likely still need some level of custom device control, but the more we can use generic interfaces for, the less custom code (and interfaces) we'll need on the userspace side. Cheers, Jeremy
