Re: [PATCH 0/3] Alchemy: platform updates

[Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@ru.mvista.com>]

Hello.

Manuel Lauss wrote:

>>> Patch overview:
>>>
>>> #1: eliminate alchemy/common/platform.c.  Add platform device
>>>     registration to all boards instead.
>>>   
>>>       
>>   I'm strongly voting against this, as it causes totally unneeded code 
>> duplication. Please don't apply.
>>     
>
> I know it seems like a lot of unecessary duplication.  My reasons for
> doing this are
>
> a) I want to get rid of the various cpu-type specific config symbols,
>    (i.e. I want one kernel binary to run on 2 or more Alchemy boards
>    with different cpu models.  There's no technical reason this
>    shouldn't work.  The OHCI block for instance has different addresses
>    on pre-Au1200 silicon; the easiest solution to that (for me) is
>    to simply move device registration to the boards that need/want it.)
>   

   Well, then create several files (like 
arch/mips/alchemy/common/au1200.c) for SoC specific platfrom device sets 
variations but don't move all platform devices into the board files. 
This will be a cleaner solution.

>    (BTW, what do you think about this?  Please tell me now if I ever
>     have a chance to get your approval on this, so I can stop wasting
>     my and everybody else's time as soon as possible).
>   

  Single kernel binary? If it's at all possible, I am all for it.

> b) the way it is now just seems wrong to me, probably comes from working
>    on SH port where each board registers the devices it needs.  I know
>    this is in no way a valid technical justification; but everytime I
>    look at this file something tells me it is just wrong ;)
>   

  Don't listen to the voices in your head. ;-)

>>>     I realize this is a lot of (needless) code duplication at first,
>>>     but it seems a lot cleaner to me if each board registered the
>>>     devices it needs/wants.  
>>>       
>>    No, it's certainly a step backwards. You could make the common code 
>> more flexible by checking what devices are enabled and registering them 
>> selectively
>>     
>
> Please elaborate.  Shall I check for a config symbol or if bootloader
> has enabled the peripherals?  The latter is IMO stupid since the
> bootloader should only load an OS and not preemptively enable every
> device which might some day be used just because the running OS doesn't
> know what it wants...
>   

   It should check what the board code (or bootloader) has enabled. I 
remember the board code writes some config registers...

> 	Manuel Lauss
>   

WBR, Sergei