2012/12/26 Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> On 12/26/2012 11:46 AM, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>> 2012/12/26 Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>>> On 12/25/2012 07:23 PM, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SSB_SFLASH
>>>> +struct ssb_sflash {
>>>> + bool present;
>>>> +};
>>>> +#endif
>>>
>>> I assume you want to share some of the code for the serial flash driver
>>> between bcma and ssb. You should create a file with the structure in
>>> include/linux/platform_data/ and share that between bcma and ssb.
>>
>> It's a small struct having about 5 trivial fields. We don't share
>> sturcts for any other drivers (chipcommon/mips/pcie) so I think they
>> should stay separated here as well.
>
> When this structure is just used in ssb or bcma and in the nvram code of
> arch/mips/bcm47x I would also prefer two structures one for bcma and one
> for ssb.
>
>> Plus the mtd driver will have to implement bus abstraction anyway.
>
> If you have a structure describing the needs of the serial flash driver
> in drivers/mtd/ you could write the flash driver without any ifdef
> BCMA_* or SSB_* and if does not have to include linux/ssb/ssb.h or
> linu/bcma/bcma.h, like I did this with the watchdog driver
> include/linux/bcm47xx_wdt.h
OK, I've analyzed your bcm47xx_wdt. I can see you abstract bus here
and implement some simple ops.
We could add similar extra layer for sflash, but I wonder what we
could put in that. For full sflash support we need 2 things:
1) Hardware info (u32 window, u32 blocksize, u16 numblocks)
2) Chipcommon access (read32, write32)
In total that are only ~5 fields in some struct. I wonder if it makes
sense to move that abstracting code to an extra layer? Maybe we can
just do that in bcm47xxsflash with few ifdefs?
--
Rafał
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
