> > If there is something yet missing in sdhci-pltfm which you need, it > > probably is worth adding it there. Chances are good that other > > pltfm-users might want that, too. > > Taking that to an extreme, any sdhci driver should plug into sdhci-pltfm and > just add the hooks needed. It will result in just one more abstraction layer that > makes following code flow harder. Yes, of course. SDHCI is pretty well defined, so a good core on a SOC should just need sdhci-pltfm and some pltfm-data (and we got rid of a complete driver that way recently). If the core has quirks (as most sadly do), a bit of extension is needed. I'd prefer to have those extensions in one place rather than hidden in various drivers. I have the assumption they will be reusable, maybe this is a core point where we disagree? > Especially if you want some of the quirk code to be moved from sdhci.c > to the driver. Please elaborate. Why is sdhci-pltfm complicating things here? Kind regards, Wolfram -- Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
