On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 11:07:17AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Saturday 12 February 2011 18:23:58 Shawn Guo wrote: > > Well, we are removing inclusion of mach/dma.h from mmc driver, but > > adding it to every mxs based machine code. This makes mmc driver > > clean but machine code becomes not. For some dma client devices > > coming later, the platform data could be saved at all, if they do not > > have any. But with the approach you are suggesting, every single > > client device will have to get platform data. > > Right, unless there is a way to encode it exlusively in the resources, > which is what I was suggesting at first: If the dma engine driver > knows about all the channels, you only need to pass the channel number. > > If you use a flattened device tree, you can avoid the need for > platform data by adding the phandle of the dma engine device to > a property of the mmc driver, along with the channel number inside > of that device. I think that would be the cleanest approach, but > some people still need to be convinced that changing drivers to > use fdt data is the right direction for ARM. > Could we keep the current the approach for now and go to the cleanest way directly when Grant's dt patches get merged? Regards, Shawn -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
