On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 19:28:02 +0000
vitor [off-list ref] wrote:

On 26/11/18 19:08, Boris Brezillon wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 19:56:18 +0100
Boris Brezillon [off-list ref] wrote:
    

quoted

quoted

      - for the others it will easy the SoC integration avoiding
duplicated work and doing things from scratch.  

What would be duplicated? You want to support a new SoC, just add a new
entry in the of_match_table and you're done. When you need to add
SoC/integration specific stuff, create a struct and attach a different
instance per-compatible so that each SoC can have its own configuration
(or even init sequence if needed). That's how we do for pretty much all
IPs out there, why should designware ones be different?  

To be more specific, I'd like a real example that shows why the
separation is needed.  

Ok no problem. We can delay this for PCI and other rules support.

I finally understand what this separation is all about: supporting both
PCI and platform devices. I guess I've been distracted by this sentence:

"
This patch will allow SOC integrators to add their code specific to
DesignWare I3C IP.
"

which for me meant each SoC would have its own platform_driver.

In any case, I think this is a bit premature do this separation, unless
you already know about one integrator planning to expose this IP over
PCI.