Greg KH wrote:
quoted text
> Except that the individual drivers are a lot of the time written by
> different people, live in different portions of the tree, and are
> combined into different combinations depending on the chipset.

Yes -- the worst case is that people have to work together, and it 
tweaks people who like to organize source files nicely into directories :)


quoted text
> For i2c devices, I see the scx200_acb, i2c-elektor, i2c-sis5595, and
> i2c-sis630 drivers needing this.  The last one happens to share the pci
> device with a video driver, that doesn't always need to be / want to be
> loaded by users just so they can read the temperature of their
> processors.

Sure.  Reasonable request, and doable within today's APIs.


quoted text
> Oh, the EDAC code also needs this, and I know that no one wants to merge
> that stuff into their individual drivers :)

So people have to work together...  darn :)  most drivers these days are 
organized nicely into nicely modular units anyway, making it easy to 
write a "shell" driver that simply registers each sub-driver, and helps 
arbitrate/provide resources to sub-units.

Consider, for example, a PCI driver that loads, and then fills in 
platform_data to provide a specific set of resources to a platform 
driver (a common idiom).  You would need to create parented struct 
devices (parent: pci_dev's device), but everything else should work within

I could even forsee a future where most drivers are written in a generic 
platform-driver style, and PCI|sbus|embedded-bus|blah are simply 
bus-specific shells that fill in platform data.

All of this should be nicely possible within the existing usage of 
struct device, platform drivers, generic DMA API, iomap, etc.

	Jeff



--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/