From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: jdzheng@broadcom.com (Jiandong Zheng)
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 09:53:54 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 4/9] ARM: pmu: remove arm_pmu_type enumeration
In-Reply-To: <502A0FA0.3010602@arm.com>
References: <1344620195-22372-1-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com>
 <1344620195-22372-5-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com>
 <50297838.7080208@broadcom.com> <502A0FA0.3010602@arm.com>
Message-ID: <502A82A2.9090307@broadcom.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 8/14/2012 1:43 AM, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote:
> Hi Jiandong,
>
> On 13/08/12 22:57, Jiandong Zheng wrote:
>> On 8/10/2012 10:36 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> From: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com>
>>>    static struct platform_device pmu_device = {
>>>        .name        = "arm-pmu",
>>> -    .id        = ARM_PMU_DEVICE_CPU,
>>> +    .id        = -1,
>>>        .resource    = &pmu_resource,
>>>        .num_resources    = 1,
>>>    };
>>>
>> Isn't it clearer to define a meaningful name for "-1", esp. if "-1" is
>> being checked somewhere else?
>
> No platform_device->id is not being referred anywhere. 
> ARM_PMU_DEVICE_CPU was initially assigned to id to identify different 
> PMU types through platform_device->id variable but was never used.
>
> Also for all new platforms that might support multiple PMUs, we can 
> use device tree to identify them.
>
Seems it is just a field not in use. Even though I still prefer 
something like "ARM_PMU_DEFAULT_ID" to "-1", I am OK with "-1" as well.

Acked-by: Jiandong Zheng <jdzheng@broadcom.com>

Thanks,
JD