Hi Mitch, On Nov 13, 2012, at 9:09 PM, Mitch Bradley wrote: > On 11/13/2012 8:29 AM, Stephen Warren wrote: >> On 11/13/2012 11:10 AM, Mitch Bradley wrote: >>> It seems to me that this capebus discussion is missing an important >>> point. The name capebus suggests that it is a bus, so there should be a >>> parent node to represent that bus. It should have a driver whose API >>> implements all of the system-interface functions a cape needs. >> >> It was discussed earlier that capebus isn't actually a bus. It's simply >> a collection of a bunch of pins from the SoC hooked up to connectors. >> I'd agree that it's mis-named. >> > > Nevertheless, to the extent that the set of pins is finite and > well-defined, it should be possible to define a set of software > interfaces to support the functionality represented by those pins. > > It might depend on the underlying SoC, but even so, it would still be > best to encapsulate the interface set. I hear all these use cases that > presuppose a wide variety of user skill sets. If one really wants to > support such users well, it's important to define a coherent single > point of interface. > > That's what capebus is. Too bad there's such a fuss about the name. Check out the thread from the start for the sordid details. Regards -- Pantelis -- 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
