[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101130184049.GC8521@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 18:40:49 +0000
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Jimmy RUBIN <jimmy.rubin@...ricsson.com>,
Dan JOHANSSON <dan.johansson@...ricsson.com>,
Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
Marcus LORENTZON <marcus.xm.lorentzon@...ricsson.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-media@...r.kernel.org" <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] MCDE: Add build files and bus
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 04:21:47PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 30 November 2010, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > 2010/11/26 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>:
> >
> > > * When you say that the devices are static, I hope you do not mean
> > > static in the C language sense. We used to allow devices to be
> > > declared as "static struct" and registered using
> > > platform_device_register (or other bus specific functions). This
> > > is no longer valid and we are removing the existing users, do not
> > > add new ones. When creating a platform device, use
> > > platform_device_register_simple or platform_device_register_resndata.
> >
> > Is this part of the generic ARM runtime multi-platform kernel
> > and device trees shebang?
> >
> > The Ux500 still isn't in that sector, it needs extensive rewriting
> > of arch/arm/mach-ux500 to be done first, so as to support e.g.
> > U8500 and U5500 with a single kernel image.
> >
> > Trying to skin that cat that as part of this review is a bit too
> > much to ask IMO, I'd rather have the author of this driver
> > adapt to whatever platform data registration mechanism is
> > in place for the merge window. Else it needs fixing as part
> > of a bigger endavour to root out compile-time platform
> > configuration.
>
> The 'no static devices' rule is something that Greg brought up
> at the embedded developer session during PlumbersConf this year,
> I wasn't aware of the problem before that either.
>
> It is not related to the multi-platform kernel work and it's
> not ARM specific.
>
> Maybe Greg can give a short explanation of the impact of this.
> AFAIR, static device definitions still work, but there are
> plans to remove that capability in the future.
There's lots of static devices, not only platform devices, in the ARM
tree. It's going to be a hell of a lot of work to fix this all up
properly.
I hope that the capability for static devices won't disappear until
the huge pile of work on ARM has been completed.
--
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