[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CC2C94A.9040700@eukrea.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 13:38:50 +0200
From: Eric Bénard <eric@...rea.com>
To: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
CC: Dinh.Nguyen@...escale.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
amit.kucheria@...onical.com, linux@....linux.org.uk,
s.hauer@...gutronix.de, grant.likely@...retlab.ca,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, daniel@...aq.de,
valentin.longchamp@...l.ch
Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 1/3] ARM: imx: Add gpio-keys to plat-mxc
Hi Uwe,
Le 23/10/2010 11:50, Uwe Kleine-König a écrit :
> On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 10:06:21AM +0200, Eric Bénard wrote:
>> Le 23/10/2010 04:46, Dinh.Nguyen@...escale.com a écrit :
>>> +struct platform_device *__init imx_add_gpio_keys(
>>> + const struct gpio_keys_platform_data *pdata)
>>> +{
>>> + return imx_add_platform_device("gpio-keys", -1, NULL,
>>> + 0, pdata, sizeof(*pdata));
>>> +}
>>
>> What is the added value of this ?
> Is is (more or less) in line with the other imx functions that
> dynamically add platform devices.
>
>> gpio-keys is not i.MX specific so why should that land in plat-mxc ?
> I consider it OK for now. I know Eric does/wants something similar for
> pxa. If you want to push forward unification here that's great, but
> IMHO this is nothing that should stop this patch which is a good step
> forward.
>
Does that mean that, for example, for cpuimx51 and cpuimx51sd boards, I should
create : imx_add_gpio_leds, imx_add_serial_8250 and imx_add_i2c_gpio functions
instead of creating the platform_device structure in the board's files and
using platform_add_devices to register it ?
Thanks,
Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists