Re: [PATCH 0/5] mfd: replace IORESOURCE_IO by IORESOURCE_MEM

[Russell King]

On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 05:22:45PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> And as Arnd pointed out, if resources will be used for various new buses,
> "IORESOURCE_FOO" or "IORESOURCE_OTHER" is a bit vague.
> What about conflicts where one driver means i2c addresses and another
> one means gpio addresses? The resource system will reject them?

I changed the subsequent patch to use IORESOURCE_REG - at least that
better describes what it's for.  Maybe IORESOURCE_REGRANGE would be
better (so it can be used for any register range resource on any bus
type) ?

However, one issue that I hope has already been addressed is what space
the ranges are in, and how does a sub-driver get to know that.  To put
it another way, how does a sub-driver get to know about the 'base' for
these register ranges.  I hope that problem has been thought about in
MFD land _before_ the approach of passing around register ranges
through resources was allowed to happen.

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/