On 03/15/11 12:51, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:11:00AM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: >> On 03/15/11 09:38, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > [Reflowed Jonathan's text into 80 columns for legibility.] > >>> Do you think it would help to split the iio codebase into a smaller part >>> for the relatively clean drivers that can be put into shape for >>> drivers/iio, and the bulk of the code that stays in staging for a bit >>> longer, until it gets converted to the new one in small chunks? > >> 1) Spit functionality out in staging. This would give a core set that >> is basically the sysfs only stuff. To do that we'd have to define a >> struct iio_dev_basic and make it an element of the iio_dev. Prior to >> that we'd probably need to make pretty much all accesses into iio_dev >> via macros / inline functions which would not be a trivial >> undertaking. > >> Then we could switch those drivers doing the minimum to the _basic >> form. At that point we could perhaps attempt to move a couple of >> drivers and the abi docs out of staging. > >> The disadvantages of this that come to mind are: * Makes the path to >> driver addition that I'd prefer trickier. You write a basic sysfs >> only driver first, then add on stuff like events and buffering as >> separate patches. We could go the other way around like v4l2-subdev >> and have a base structure with the option of pointers to structures >> offering different combinations of features. * Not many of the >> drivers I'd consider to be ready to go at the moment are actually in >> this _basic class. > > For what it's worth I have a few drivers I'd like to do which fall into > this category. I've been put off working on them by the fact that I'm > not seeing a route out of staging for the subsystem. > >> 2) Basically make a copy. This would look like the original patch set did when we went > > A third option is just to lift everything out of staging roughly as it > is now with anything that definitely needs redoing dropped, addressing > any review comments for mainline but not doing much else, and then > resume working on adding additional stuff. It sounds like the userspace > interfaces that are there at present are mostly OK and most of the > issues are in-kernel? Mostly, though I suspect our events interface will cause some 'discussion' and that sits one step above the absolute minimum driver. Right now I want to push out the rewrite of the triggers, then I'll start putting together a patch set to try and move some stuff over and see how well things break up. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
