> > Yeah, I saw that you want to remove it, still I don't know why :) Is it feature > > incomplete and updating is impossible? Is the concept outdated? Could you > > enlighten me on that? > > I started out with the intention to fix its styling issues, add carddetect irq > support, etc. In the end it was easier to write a quick-and-dirty standalone > full-features socket driver for the DB1200 and extend it to support the > other DB/PB boards. While I was at it I modified my driver for the xxs1500, > that's all. Okay, that explains. > > The only *technical* reason I have is a personal dislike for how the current > one works: it forces every conceivable board to add dozens of cpp macros > for mem/io ranges and gets registered by board-independent code. > Hardly convincing, I know. Well, you have the (to me) pretty convincing technical argument that your drivers provide more features and less crashes which is a clear benefit for users. If we remove the generic au1000-part, then it might even be in the same amount in LoC. Okay, we lose a bit of maintainability if a bug is found in a section which was shared among the former users of generic, as it has to be updated for each of the three drivers, but well... Are there any plans to convert pb1x00 as well? Maybe I find time to look a bit more into it, but I can't test anything, of course, so the more additional comments/test-reports the better. Regards, Wolfram -- Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
