On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:46:57 -0500 Scott Wood wrote: > Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > > I acn undertand your complaint in the context of an OF driver > > (which we don't have yet) but "mmio-ide" just means nothing to the > > current driver, and it doesn't convery enough info on the > > programming interface for the conceivable OF driver, it also does > > need to know at least "reg-stride" (and maybe "reg-size" in case > > only 16/32-bit accesses can be used). Well, if such driver will be > > written, I/O mapping support will probably be dropped from it, so > > indeed, calling it mmio-ide.c would make sense. But that can be > > added when this driver is done, and for now > > I don't think the details of what Linux code currently exists should > drive the device tree binding. That the current patches use > platform_device glue code is an implementation detail (and one I'd > rather see go away, in favor of a driver that supports both > platform_device and of_device). > > > I'd really prefer the board name to appear in the "compatible" prop > > (to which "mmio-ide" can be appended)... > > Sure, that's always good... it was the "instead" that I objected to. > Hmmm. So what is finally suggested devicetree node for this beast - can somebody refine? I am a little bit confused about decided device_type and compatible fields... -- Sincerely, Vitaly - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
