From: u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de (Uwe Kleine-König)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCHv6 1/3] ARM: imx: Add gpio-keys to plat-mxc
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 11:50:49 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101023095049.GC8554@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4CC2977D.8060409@eukrea.com>
Hello Eric,
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 10:06:21AM +0200, Eric B?nard wrote:
> Le 23/10/2010 04:46, Dinh.Nguyen at freescale.com a ?crit :
>> +struct platform_device *__init imx_add_gpio_keys(
>> + const struct gpio_keys_platform_data *pdata)
>> +{
>> + return imx_add_platform_device("gpio-keys", -1, NULL,
>> + 0, pdata, sizeof(*pdata));
>> +}
>
> What is the added value of this ?
Is is (more or less) in line with the other imx functions that
dynamically add platform devices.
> gpio-keys is not i.MX specific so why should that land in plat-mxc ?
I consider it OK for now. I know Eric does/wants something similar for
pxa. If you want to push forward unification here that's great, but
IMHO this is nothing that should stop this patch which is a good step
forward.
BTW another low hanging fruit is to use use
platform_device_register_resndata to implement imx_add_platform_device
and add a few additional checks, like warn if CONFIG_DEBUG_SOMETHING is
enabled and data is non-NULL and doesn't point to .init-memory.)
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K?nig |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
To: "Eric Bénard" <eric@eukrea.com>
Cc: Dinh.Nguyen@freescale.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
amit.kucheria@canonical.com, linux@arm.linux.org.uk,
s.hauer@pengutronix.de, grant.likely@secretlab.ca,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, daniel@caiaq.de,
valentin.longchamp@epfl.ch
Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 1/3] ARM: imx: Add gpio-keys to plat-mxc
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 11:50:49 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101023095049.GC8554@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4CC2977D.8060409@eukrea.com>
Hello Eric,
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 10:06:21AM +0200, Eric Bénard wrote:
> Le 23/10/2010 04:46, Dinh.Nguyen@freescale.com a écrit :
>> +struct platform_device *__init imx_add_gpio_keys(
>> + const struct gpio_keys_platform_data *pdata)
>> +{
>> + return imx_add_platform_device("gpio-keys", -1, NULL,
>> + 0, pdata, sizeof(*pdata));
>> +}
>
> What is the added value of this ?
Is is (more or less) in line with the other imx functions that
dynamically add platform devices.
> gpio-keys is not i.MX specific so why should that land in plat-mxc ?
I consider it OK for now. I know Eric does/wants something similar for
pxa. If you want to push forward unification here that's great, but
IMHO this is nothing that should stop this patch which is a good step
forward.
BTW another low hanging fruit is to use use
platform_device_register_resndata to implement imx_add_platform_device
and add a few additional checks, like warn if CONFIG_DEBUG_SOMETHING is
enabled and data is non-NULL and doesn't point to .init-memory.)
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-10-23 9:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-10-23 2:46 [PATCHv6 1/3] ARM: imx: Add gpio-keys to plat-mxc Dinh.Nguyen at freescale.com
2010-10-23 2:46 ` Dinh.Nguyen
2010-10-23 2:46 ` [PATCHv6 2/3] ARM: mx5: Add gpio-keys to mx51 babbage board Dinh.Nguyen at freescale.com
2010-10-23 2:46 ` Dinh.Nguyen
2010-10-23 2:46 ` [PATCHv6 3/3] ARM: imx: Add wake functionality to GPIO Dinh.Nguyen at freescale.com
2010-10-23 2:46 ` Dinh.Nguyen
2010-10-23 8:08 ` [PATCHv6 2/3] ARM: mx5: Add gpio-keys to mx51 babbage board Eric Bénard
2010-10-23 8:08 ` Eric Bénard
2010-10-23 8:06 ` [PATCHv6 1/3] ARM: imx: Add gpio-keys to plat-mxc Eric Bénard
2010-10-23 8:06 ` Eric Bénard
2010-10-23 9:50 ` Uwe Kleine-König [this message]
2010-10-23 9:50 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2010-10-23 11:38 ` Eric Bénard
2010-10-23 11:38 ` Eric Bénard
2010-10-24 19:17 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2010-10-24 19:17 ` Uwe Kleine-König
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=20101023095049.GC8554@pengutronix.de \
--to=u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de \
--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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.