From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: shawn.guo@linaro.org (Shawn Guo)
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 10:30:10 +0800
Subject: [PATCH 02/17] ARM: at91: use machine specific hook for late init
In-Reply-To: <20120427142601.GU9142@game.jcrosoft.org>
References: <1335454725-13089-1-git-send-email-shawn.guo@linaro.org>
 <1335454725-13089-3-git-send-email-shawn.guo@linaro.org>
 <20120426152906.GP9142@game.jcrosoft.org>
 <20120427140746.GD2234@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net>
 <20120427142601.GU9142@game.jcrosoft.org>
Message-ID: <20120428023008.GA9924@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 04:26:01PM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> we discuss with Arnd we came back with 2 ideas one is to use a machine
> specific initcall or compatible specifc initcall

Do you mean an initcall with machine/compatible detection inside?  The
whole point of the hooks in struct machine_desc  is to save the
machine/compatible detection.  You already use .init_machine as
an arch_initcall time hook, and what .init_late provides you is just
a late_initcall time hook.  If you want to detect machine/compatible
in your late_initcall rather than using this hook, you should not
use .init_machine for the same reason.

> or the second one is to
> resurect Marc patch series to introduce soc_desc
> 
This is the approach I can agree on, but isn't the patch moving one
step close to that, turning the late_initcall into a function which
can be hooked into soc specific call?

> and on at91 Ill not touch it as the old style board can NOT be compiled with
> other soc (only one at91 soc at a time).
> 
> And I'll not fix it as we move to the DT which I fix to be able to be compiled
> in the multiarch kernel.
> 
It's something on your plate.  Just tell me to drop the patch from
the series, if you do not want it in.

-- 
Regards,
Shawn