From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hartleys@visionengravers.com (H Hartley Sweeten) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 16:49:27 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 04/17] ARM: ep93xx: use machine specific hook for late init In-Reply-To: <4F99B9EB.6060806@gmail.com> References: <1335454725-13089-1-git-send-email-shawn.guo@linaro.org> <1335454725-13089-5-git-send-email-shawn.guo@linaro.org> <4F99B9EB.6060806@gmail.com> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thursday, April 26, 2012 2:11 PM, Ryan Mallon wrote: > On 27/04/12 01:38, Shawn Guo wrote: > >> Cc: Hartley Sweeten >> Cc: Ryan Mallon >> Signed-off-by: Shawn Guo > > > Why do we want this? It increases the size of the code and changes > a static function to a non-static one that now requires ifdefery > to handle the !CONFIG_CRUNCH case. I don't see the value in this > patch? Ryan, See Shawn's "[PATCH 00/17] arch/arm/mach-* late_initcall cleanup". I haven't looked closely at this yet. I think there may be some platforms where the late_initcall's might cause a problem when making an ARM unified kernel. Actually I have a question about the ARM unified kernel. Wouldn't every mach-* supported by a unified kernel have to at least be the same ARM variant (i.e. they share a common compiler setup)? The ep93xx is an arm920t. Are there any other mach-* types that use that? Regards, Hartley