[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87wrjyksnm.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 10:22:53 +0100
From: Peter Korsgaard <jacmet@...site.dk>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: "avictor.za\@gmail.com" <avictor.za@...il.com>,
Jamie Iles <jamie@...ieiles.com>, plagnioj@...osoft.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, nicolas.ferre@...el.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 3/9] macb: unify at91 and avr32 platform data
>>>>> "Russell" == Russell King <- ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>> writes:
Hi,
>> That should probably be cleaned up as well then. Sharing platform_data
>> structures between unrelated drivers seems like quite a mess to me.
Russell> Why should every driver have a separate platform data structure?
Russell> Is it right to end up with thousands of unique data structures each
Russell> specific to a particular driver? To me, that sounds like a headache
Russell> waiting to happen.
Well, the point of the platform data is to provide driver specific
(E.G. not generic) data to the driver, so in general it will be
different for different hardware.
The current situation with 2 different structure defination depending on
arch, macro magic and 1 of these structures also used for a 2nd driver
isn't optimal.
But ok, I don't feel strongly about struct macb_platform_data also being
used for the old at91_ether driver, but it shouldn't be called
eth_platform_data as it isn't really a generic structure.
--
Bye, Peter Korsgaard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists