From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755388Ab3ARTrX (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jan 2013 14:47:23 -0500 Received: from mail-pb0-f49.google.com ([209.85.160.49]:39793 "EHLO mail-pb0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753957Ab3ARTrW (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jan 2013 14:47:22 -0500 Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 11:47:17 -0800 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Pantelis Antoniou Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Matt Porter , Russ Dill , Koen Kooi Subject: Re: [PATCH] platform: Fix platform device resource linking Message-ID: <20130118194717.GB18658@kroah.com> References: <1357252270-5955-1-git-send-email-panto@antoniou-consulting.com> <20130103224020.GB4571@kroah.com> <20130117163159.GD1396@kroah.com> <95056678-DF1A-4C49-BEAE-C5EBD7E56405@antoniou-consulting.com> <20130117170719.GB9163@kroah.com> <87DCB3B7-0A5A-42F0-BF9C-0E91B56960C6@antoniou-consulting.com> <20130118030017.GA11423@kroah.com> <82FE4A4D-DCA8-4C2C-97E7-6B73D424DCF5@antoniou-consulting.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <82FE4A4D-DCA8-4C2C-97E7-6B73D424DCF5@antoniou-consulting.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:05:14AM +0200, Pantelis Antoniou wrote: > It might make sense for the of_device_* functions that are duplicating > platform_device_* functions to be removed, and their functionality to > be subsumed by platform_device_*, possibly by calling some helper functions > in drivers/of/ when of_node is not NULL. The of_device_* functions can be > replaced by a direct call to platform_device_* via a define (until all of > the callers get converted). That sounds reasonable. > The problem with doing anything like this would be that a whole bunch of > devices/arches depend on DT, and if anything breaks there will be a lot of > angry people with pitchforks after the culprit. That's nothing new, we are totally used to that happening :) > So without the full force of a core maintainer behind such a move, people > are reluctant to do so. Send patches if you want to do this, no need for the maintainer to do it (hint, I will not as I don't even have a system that this type of code runs on.) thanks, greg k-h