Hi Prakash,

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 07:28:23PM +0530, Manjunathappa, Prakash wrote:

+static int __init davinci_aemif_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
+{
+	struct davinci_aemif_devices *davinci_aemif_devices =
+		pdev->dev.platform_data;
+	struct platform_device *devices;
+	struct mfd_cell *cells;
+	int i, ret, count;
+
+	devices = davinci_aemif_devices->devices;
+
+	cells = kzalloc(sizeof(struct mfd_cell) *
+			davinci_aemif_devices->num_devices, GFP_KERNEL);
+
+	for (i = 0, count = 0; i < davinci_aemif_devices->num_devices; i++) {
+		if (!strcmp(devices[i].name, "davinci_nand")) {
+			cells[count].pdata_size =
+				sizeof(struct davinci_nand_pdata);
+		} else if (!strcmp(devices[i].name, "physmap-flash")) {
+			cells[count].pdata_size =
+				sizeof(struct physmap_flash_data);
+		} else
+			continue;
+
+		cells[count].name = devices[i].name;
+		cells[count].platform_data =
+			devices[i].dev.platform_data;
+		cells[count].id = devices[i].id;
+		cells[count].resources = devices[i].resource;
+		cells[count].num_resources = devices[i].num_resources;
+		count++;
+	}

So it seems you're passing a platform devices array through your mfd aemif
platform data pointer. And from what I can see, it's mostly a 1 entry array
(for the NAND case) or a 2 entries array (for the NAND and NOR case).
In that case, adding an MFD driver in the middle brings basically nothing but
confusion and overhead (and 200+ lines of code).
So unless someone explains to me how this is doing any good to the kernel in
general, I'm not going to take this patchset.

Cheers,
Samuel.

-- 
Intel Open Source Technology Centre
http://oss.intel.com/