On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 03:46:11PM +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote: > Hi > > On 5/10/20 12:50 PM, Serge Semin wrote: > > Seeing the DW I2C platform driver is getting overcomplicated with a lot of > > vendor-specific configs let's introduce a glue-layer interface so new > > platforms which equipped with Synopsys Designware APB I2C IP-core would > > be able to handle their peculiarities in the dedicated objects. > > > Comment to this patch and patches 9/12 and 12/12: > > Currently i2c-designware-platdrv.c is about 500 lines of code so I don't > think it's too overcomplicated. But I feel we have already too many Kconfig > options and source modules for i2c-designware and obviously would like to > push back a little from adding more. > > I don't think i2c-designware-platdrv.c becomes yet too complicated if Baikal > related code is added there, perhaps under #ifdef CONFIG_OF like MSCC Ocelot > code is currently. Well, it's up to you to decide, what solution is more suitable for you to maintain. My idea of detaching the MSCC and Baikal-T1 code to the dedicated source files was to eventually move the whole i2c-designware-* set of files into a dedicated directory drivers/i2c/buses/dw as it's done for some others Synopsys DesignWare controllers: drivers/pci/controller/dwc/, drivers/usb/dwc2, drivers/usb/dwc3, drivers/net/ethernet/synopsys/ . If you think, that it's too early for Dw I2C code to live in a dedicated directory, fine with me. I can merge the MSCC and Baikal-T1 code back into the i2c-designware-platdrv.c . So what's your final word in this matter? -Sergey > > -- > Jarkko
