Hi Prakash,

On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 05:44:39AM +0000, Manjunathappa, Prakash wrote:

Hi Samuel,

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 19:56:38, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
[snip]

quoted

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.

In this way we trying to isolate future modification of aemif driver not to depict
as platform code change, the need for this is based on discussion in below thread
http://davinci-linux-open-source.1494791.n2.nabble.com/PATCH-arm-davinci-configure-davinci-aemif-chipselects-through-OF-tt7059739.html#none

I fail to see how you're going to achieve that with adding an MFD platform
device registration in the middle.

Earlier also concern was expressed to move aemif driver out of arch/arm to drivers folder.
Here is the link for the same: http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2011-August/037308.html
Since aemif driver supports NAND/NOR devices, we feel MFD is the place holder.

I would disagree with that. And it certainly makes sense to move many drivers
out of arch/arm into a more appropriate place but I'd like to keep mfd as
something else than yet another misc.

Cheers,
Samuel.

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