On 17 January 2011 12:57, Michael Büsch <email@example.com> wrote:
> Well... I don't really like the idea of running one driver and
> subsystem implementation on completely distinct types of silicon.
> We will end up with the same mess that broadcom ended up with in
> their "SB" code (broadcom's SSB backplane implementation).
> For example, in their code the driver calls pci_enable_device() and
> related PCI functions, even if there is no PCI device at all. The calls
> are magically re-routed to the actual SB backplane.
> You'd have to do the same mess with SSB. Calling ssb_device_enable()
> will mean "enable the SSB device", if the backplane is SSB, and will
> mean "enable the HND/AI" device, if the backplane is HND/AI.
It didn't strike me as that bad, but I also didn't look at any PCI code.
> So I'm still in favor of doing a separate HND/AI bus implementation,
> even if
> that means duplicating a few lines of code.
Well, it means at least duplicating most of the chipcommon driver and
the mips core driver. But if you are fine with that, I see no problem
with having a separate driver for the AI bus.
> SSB doesn't search for SSB busses in the system, because there's no
> way to do so. The architecture (or the PCI/PCMCIA/SDIO device) registers
> the bus,
> if it detected an SSB device. So for the embedded case, it's hardcoded
> in the arch code. For the PCI case it simply depends on the PCI IDs.
> I don't see a problem here. Your arch code will already have to know
> what machine it is running on. So it will have to decide whether to
> register a SSB or HND/AI bus.
Okay. This is mostly for the embedded case, where it is possible to
create a single kernel that boots on both. The "detection" could also
be done through the cpu type (74k => register AI bus, else SSB bus)
instead of the chipid register of the common core.
>> Also I don't know
>> if it is a good idea to let arch-specific code depend on code in
> Sure. The code needs to be cleaned up and moved to the mainline kernel
> _anyway_. You don't get around this.
Yes, you are right.
So I guess the proposed course of action would be:
1. Make the HND/AI-Bus code from brcm80211 its own independent driver,
2. Re-add the non-wifi related code (chipcommon, mips, etc),
3. Clean up the code until it meets Linux' code style/quality,
4. Move it out of staging,
5. Add the required arch specific code to bcm47xx for the newer SoCs.
P.S: Any suggestions for the name? Would be "ai" okay? Technically
it's "AMBA Interconnect", but "amba" is already taken.