On Wed, 11 Jan 2012, Cousson, Benoit wrote: > Something that puzzle me on that point is most architecture does not use > plateform_device and thus does not have any pdata to hack some custom function > pointers here an there. > It means that there is probably some better solution to handle that. PCI and USB have their own bus-level device reset functions that are exported from bus code that lives under drivers/. In a similar fashion, we could export omap_device_reset() from our arch/arm/plat-omap code. But that would require that arch/arm/plat-omap and arch/arm/mach-omap2 code to be compiled for any ARM build that includes i2c-omap.c. This would be good to avoid, under the principle that drivers should be buildable for any architecture. (This is also why we wish to remove omap_{read,write}*() and cpu_is_omap() from any drivers which contain those.) The intention a few years ago was to eventually create a a real omap_bus and omap_device, with the bus/device integration code living under drivers. In such a situation, we'd be able to use something like the PCI/USB approach cleanly, since there wouldn't be dependencies to arch/ code. > AFAIU, the way PPC is handling that is by splitting the driver in a generic > part and in a platform specific part. > > You can then add any OMAP specific hacks in the OMAP specific part while > keeping most of generic code in a generic driver. > > In this case, we just have to implement a small shim that will handle the OMAP > specific code for the reset. The generic driver will handle the rest. > > Maybe I'm missing some important details, but that does seems easily doable > for the i2c case. Hmm. How do those drivers call the platform-specific code in a way that allows those drivers to be built for non-PPC platforms? - Paul -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html