On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 11:42:28AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 09:28:47AM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
Per discussion [1], the whole point we move to fsl_ssi is that we can reuse the DT support already in fsl_ssi. If it's something we should not use for IMX, I fail to see why we should make this move.
I was assuming that the idea was to share the code for device control as the same IP block was being deployed in the various Freescale SoCs
- if the only thing they have in common is the device tree support it
would be a bit strange to merge them.
Here is the thing.
For historical reason, there are two drivers for the same SSI block found on PowerPC and IMX, fsl_ssi and imx-ssi. The fsl_ssi driver is used on PowerPC with DT support, while imx-ssi is used on IMX with no DT support. Along with the work of supporting DT for the modern IMX SoCs, I was planning to add DT support into imx-ssi. But I was told by Timur that instead of doing that, I should reuse fsl_ssi for those DT aware IMX platforms. From his POV, one big reason of why imx-ssi was created is that ARM/IMX did not support DT before while fsl_ssi was born to support DT only. Since ARM/IMX starts supporting DT, fsl_ssi should be reused there.
I'm personally fine with either reusing fsl_ssi or adding DT support into imx-ssi. I do not see any problem with reusing fsl_ssi so far, but I can quickly turn around to adding new binding for imx-ssi if you are strong on this position.
Note that it's purely the bit where the machine driver is instantiated from the SSI (which is just one or two of several properties) that I'm talking about here, the bindings for the SSI itself look good.
Hmm, there is no SSI binding property contributing to instantiating the machine driver. It looks /model property for the device name used to instantiate the machine driver, which I personally think is fine.