On Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 01:49:42PM +0200, Manuel Lauss wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Wolfram Sang <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >> > Yeah, I saw that you want to remove it, still I don't know why :) Is it
> >> > feature
> >> > incomplete and updating is impossible? Is the concept outdated? Could you
> >> > enlighten me on that?
> >> I started out with the intention to fix its styling issues, add carddetect
> >> irq
> >> support, etc. In the end it was easier to write a quick-and-dirty
> >> standalone
> >> full-features socket driver for the DB1200 and extend it to support the
> >> other DB/PB boards. While I was at it I modified my driver for the xxs1500,
> >> that's all.
> > Okay, that explains.
> >> The only *technical* reason I have is a personal dislike for how the
> >> current
> >> one works: it forces every conceivable board to add dozens of cpp macros
> >> for mem/io ranges and gets registered by board-independent code.
> >> Hardly convincing, I know.
> > Well, you have the (to me) pretty convincing technical argument that your
> > drivers provide more features and less crashes which is a clear benefit for
> > users. If we remove the generic au1000-part, then it might even be in the
> > same
> > amount in LoC. Okay, we lose a bit of maintainability if a bug is found in a
> > section which was shared among the former users of generic, as it has to be
> > updated for each of the three drivers, but well... Are there any plans to
> > convert pb1x00 as well?
> The new db1xxx_ss.c already supports all boards pb1x00 is supposed to,
> except for the PB1000 (the very first Alchemy devboard), which has a
> rather awkward carddetect irq scheme, so I kept the au1000_pb1x00.c
> for it. Unfortunately I don't have this board to test on, and *if* there are
> any linux users with this board, they choose to remain silent (the driver
> hasn't built for it in years, so go figure). I'd rather get rid of
> PB1000 support
> > Maybe I find time to look a bit more into it, but I can't test anything, of
> > course, so the more additional comments/test-reports the better.
> Thanks. As I mentioned, the db1xxx_ss part works on my Db1200/Db1300
> boards; I don't have any others to test on.
Deending on the urgency you assign to these patches I can keep them in
my queue for 2.6.33 and push them upstream for linux-next.