linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: grant.likely@secretlab.ca (Grant Likely)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC/PATCH 7/7] WIP: HACK/RFC: omap_device: begin to decouple platform_device from omap_device
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 01:00:19 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110802000019.GA8719@ponder.secretlab.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110801230945.GB21535@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>

On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 12:09:45AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> 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 <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> 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.

+1

g.

  reply	other threads:[~2011-08-02  0:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-07-21 23:52 [RFC/PATCH 0/7] decouple platform_device from omap_device Kevin Hilman
2011-07-21 23:52 ` [PATCH] OMAP: omap_device: replace _find_by_pdev() with to_omap_device() Kevin Hilman
2011-07-22  8:53   ` Felipe Balbi
2011-07-21 23:52 ` [RFC/PATCH 1/7] OMAP: omap_device: replace debug/warning/error prints with dev_* macros Kevin Hilman
2011-07-21 23:52 ` [RFC/PATCH 2/7] OMAP3: beagle: don't touch omap_device internals Kevin Hilman
2011-07-22  8:57   ` Felipe Balbi
2011-07-28  5:53     ` Nishanth Menon
2011-07-28 10:10       ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-07-28 12:57       ` Cousson, Benoit
2011-07-28 12:59         ` Felipe Balbi
2011-07-28 13:31         ` Menon, Nishanth
2011-07-29 13:49           ` Nishanth Menon
2011-07-29 14:05             ` Felipe Balbi
2011-07-29 23:07               ` Menon, Nishanth
2011-08-01  8:52                 ` Felipe Balbi
2011-07-28  8:36     ` Jean Pihet
2011-07-28  8:40     ` Jean Pihet
2011-07-21 23:52 ` [RFC/PATCH 3/7] OMAP: McBSP: use existing macros for converting between devices Kevin Hilman
2011-07-22  8:58   ` Felipe Balbi
2011-07-22 12:32   ` Sergei Shtylyov
2011-07-22 20:19     ` Kevin Hilman
2011-07-21 23:52 ` [RFC/PATCH 4/7] OMAP: omap_device: remove internal functions from omap_device.h Kevin Hilman
2011-07-21 23:52 ` [RFC/PATCH 5/7] OMAP: omap_device: when building return platform_device instead of omap_device Kevin Hilman
2011-07-21 23:52 ` [RFC/PATCH 6/7] OMAP: omap_device: device register functions now take platform_device pointer Kevin Hilman
2011-07-22  6:16   ` Grant Likely
2011-07-21 23:52 ` [RFC/PATCH 7/7] WIP: HACK/RFC: omap_device: begin to decouple platform_device from omap_device Kevin Hilman
2011-07-22  2:20   ` Grant Likely
2011-07-30 12:03   ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-07-31  2:58     ` Grant Likely
2011-07-31 15:05       ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-08-01 15:42         ` Kevin Hilman
2011-08-01 15:44           ` Grant Likely
2011-08-01 18:50             ` Felipe Balbi
2011-08-01 20:07               ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-08-01 22:11                 ` Kevin Hilman
2011-08-01 22:55                   ` Felipe Balbi
2011-08-01 23:09                     ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-08-02  0:00                       ` Grant Likely [this message]
2011-07-27 14:04 ` [RFC/PATCH 0/7] " G, Manjunath Kondaiah
2011-07-27 21:45   ` Hilman, Kevin
2011-07-28  4:50     ` G, Manjunath Kondaiah
2011-07-29 23:59       ` Kevin Hilman

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20110802000019.GA8719@ponder.secretlab.ca \
    --to=grant.likely@secretlab.ca \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).