From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russell King - ARM Linux Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 7/7] WIP: HACK/RFC: omap_device: begin to decouple platform_device from omap_device Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 00:09:45 +0100 Message-ID: <20110801230945.GB21535@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1311292338-11830-9-git-send-email-khilman@ti.com> <20110730120332.GA15539@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20110731025807.GA24334@ponder.secretlab.ca> <20110731150540.GA3019@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <871ux5nnop.fsf@ti.com> <20110801185009.GA5217@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> <20110801200743.GA21535@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <87pqkon5n6.fsf@ti.com> <20110801225554.GC6244@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110801225554.GC6244@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Felipe Balbi Cc: Kevin Hilman , Grant Likely , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, Paul Walmsley , "G. Manjunath Kondaiah" , devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 01:55:55AM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 03:11:57PM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote: > > Russell King - ARM Linux writes: > > > > > Help the typechecker do its job. As we have only one (at the moment...) > > > And make it: > > > > > > +struct omap_device; > > > > > > struct pdev_archdata { > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP > > > + struct omap_device *omap; > > > +#endif > > > }; > > > > > > for bonus points, so we only get the additional pointer for OMAP. > > > > OK, will do it this way. > > this has the tendency to grow larger, no ? What if all other ARMs decide > to add their own pointers there too ? Their pointers for what? It's only OMAP which has this special omap_device thing. Should that spread, instead of adding more pointers here, the work should be to consolidate between those various implementations. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 00:09:45 +0100 Subject: [RFC/PATCH 7/7] WIP: HACK/RFC: omap_device: begin to decouple platform_device from omap_device In-Reply-To: <20110801225554.GC6244@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> References: <1311292338-11830-9-git-send-email-khilman@ti.com> <20110730120332.GA15539@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20110731025807.GA24334@ponder.secretlab.ca> <20110731150540.GA3019@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <871ux5nnop.fsf@ti.com> <20110801185009.GA5217@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> <20110801200743.GA21535@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <87pqkon5n6.fsf@ti.com> <20110801225554.GC6244@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> Message-ID: <20110801230945.GB21535@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 01:55:55AM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 03:11:57PM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote: > > Russell King - ARM Linux writes: > > > > > Help the typechecker do its job. As we have only one (at the moment...) > > > And make it: > > > > > > +struct omap_device; > > > > > > struct pdev_archdata { > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP > > > + struct omap_device *omap; > > > +#endif > > > }; > > > > > > for bonus points, so we only get the additional pointer for OMAP. > > > > OK, will do it this way. > > this has the tendency to grow larger, no ? What if all other ARMs decide > to add their own pointers there too ? Their pointers for what? It's only OMAP which has this special omap_device thing. Should that spread, instead of adding more pointers here, the work should be to consolidate between those various implementations.