On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 14:43, Jonas Gorski <jonas.gorski@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 17 January 2011 12:57, Michael BÃsch <mb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Well... I don't really like the idea of running one driver and
>> subsystem implementation on completely distinct types of silicon.
>> We will end up with the same mess that broadcom ended up with in
>> their "SB" code (broadcom's SSB backplane implementation).
>> For example, in their code the driver calls pci_enable_device() and
>> related PCI functions, even if there is no PCI device at all. The calls
>> are magically re-routed to the actual SB backplane.
>> You'd have to do the same mess with SSB. Calling ssb_device_enable()
>> will mean "enable the SSB device", if the backplane is SSB, and will
>> mean "enable the HND/AI" device, if the backplane is HND/AI.
> P.S: Any suggestions for the name? Would be "ai" okay? Technically
> it's "AMBA Interconnect", but "amba" is already taken.
If it's AMBA, can it be integrated with the existing code in drivers/amba/?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
            Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
             Â Â -- Linus Torvalds
