[lkml]   [2020]   [May]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 08/12] i2c: designware: Introduce platform drivers glue layer interface

On 5/21/20 5:37 AM, Serge Semin wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 03:46:11PM +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
>> Hi
>> On 5/10/20 12:50 PM, Serge Semin wrote:
>>> Seeing the DW I2C platform driver is getting overcomplicated with a lot of
>>> vendor-specific configs let's introduce a glue-layer interface so new
>>> platforms which equipped with Synopsys Designware APB I2C IP-core would
>>> be able to handle their peculiarities in the dedicated objects.
>> Comment to this patch and patches 9/12 and 12/12:
>> Currently i2c-designware-platdrv.c is about 500 lines of code so I don't
>> think it's too overcomplicated. But I feel we have already too many Kconfig
>> options and source modules for i2c-designware and obviously would like to
>> push back a little from adding more.
>> I don't think i2c-designware-platdrv.c becomes yet too complicated if Baikal
>> related code is added there, perhaps under #ifdef CONFIG_OF like MSCC Ocelot
>> code is currently.
> Well, it's up to you to decide, what solution is more suitable for you to
> maintain. My idea of detaching the MSCC and Baikal-T1 code to the dedicated
> source files was to eventually move the whole i2c-designware-* set of files
> into a dedicated directory drivers/i2c/buses/dw as it's done for some others
> Synopsys DesignWare controllers: drivers/pci/controller/dwc/, drivers/usb/dwc2,
> drivers/usb/dwc3, drivers/net/ethernet/synopsys/ . If you think, that it's too
> early for Dw I2C code to live in a dedicated directory, fine with me. I can
> merge the MSCC and Baikal-T1 code back into the i2c-designware-platdrv.c .
> So what's your final word in this matter?
I think sub directory decision under each subsystem is more subsystem
rather than vendor/driver specific. Good point anyway.

For this patchset I'd like more if changes are done to
i2c-designware-platdrv.c since it's not too complicated yet :-)

If it starts to look too messy in the future then it's time split I think.


 \ /
  Last update: 2020-05-25 15:17    [W:0.117 / U:4.268 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site