[PATCH 07/12] memory: davinci-aemif: introduce AEMIF driver

[Sekhar Nori]

On 11/26/2013 8:35 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 November 2013 02:20 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>> On Monday 11 November 2013 10:36 PM, Khoronzhuk, Ivan wrote:
>>> Add new AEMIF driver for EMIF16 davinci controller. The EMIF16 module
>>> is intended to provide a glue-less interface to a variety of
>>> asynchronous memory devices like ASRA M, NOR and NAND memory. A total
>>> of 256M bytes of any of these memories can be accessed at any given
>>> time via four chip selects with 64M byte access per chip select.
>>>
>>> Synchronous memories such as DDR1 SD RAM, SDR SDRAM and Mobile SDR
>>> are not supported.
>>>
>>> See http://www.ti.com/lit/ug/sprugz3a/sprugz3a.pdf
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk at ti.com>
>>> ---
> 
> [...]
> 
>>> +static int davinci_aemif_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> +{
>>> +       int ret  = -ENODEV, i;
>>> +       struct resource *res;
>>> +       struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
>>> +       struct device_node *np = dev->of_node;
>>> +
>>> +       if (np == NULL)
>>> +               return 0;
>>> +
>>> +       if (aemif) {
>>> +               dev_err(dev, "davinci_aemif driver is in use currently\n");
>>> +               return -EBUSY;
>>> +       }
>>
>> Why expressly prevent multiple AEMIF devices? Its entirely conceivable
>> to have two memories like NAND and NOR flash connect to two different
>> AEMIF interfaces.
>>
> Ivan wanted me to clarify the Keystone hardware which supports
> 1 instance of controller with 4 CS. That allows already four
> devices to be connected. Currently NAND and NOR are connected on it
> and two more slots are free.
> 
> Since driver support what hardware is, lets not build a driver for
> hardware which don't exist. And if at all such a support would be
> needed in future, we can always add it.

I understand the lack of hardware part, but its common to write the
driver such that it can handle multiple instances. Is there any gain on
current hardware because of this check? From what I am hearing, the code
in question wont be exercised at all. So why go all the way and add it
in first place?

Thanks,
Sekhar