From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Horman Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 02:30:17 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] ARM: shmobile: r8a7778: cleanup registration of sh_eth Message-Id: <20130719023017.GH4403@verge.net.au> List-Id: References: <87li5dfqft.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> In-Reply-To: <87li5dfqft.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-sh@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 03:54:33PM +0400, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > Hello. > > On 18-07-2013 3:11, Simon Horman wrote: > > >>>>>sh_eth driver which needs platform data at the time of > >>>>>registration is used from BockW only. > >>>>>Now, ARM/shmobile aims to support DT, > >>>>>and the C code base board support will be removed in the future. > >>>>>The driver registration method which needs platform data > >>>>>and which is not shared complicates codes. > >>>>>This patch registers it on board code as cleanup C code > > >>>>>Signed-off-by: Kuninori Morimoto > > >>>> NAK. > > >>>Please provide some reasoning for your objection to this change. > >>>Likewise for other patches in this series to which you have replied > >>>in the same manner. I for one do not understand what it is you object to. > > >> Sorry, I was just out of words when I saw this. I for one do not > >>understand how this change will help the DT support and to me it > >>seems no more than a pointless churn and step backward from what we > >>had. Under no circumstances I will accept this change -- I'm totally > >>opposed to the idea of moving the SoC devices to the board code. > > >Hi, > > >I believe that the crux of your concern is that the way that > >SH ethernet support has been added recently is to place SoC portions > >in setup-xxx.c and board-specific portions into board-YYY.c > > Not only Ether but all the SoC devices. Hence were the NAKs for other patches. I believe that I agree with your concerns. Morimoto-san, could you drop these cleanup patches?