Re: [PATCH v2 01/10] ARM: EXYNOS: Make exynos machine_ops as static

[Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com>]

Hi Pankaj,

On 25.04.2014 14:32, Pankaj Dubey wrote:
> As machine function ops are used only in this file let's make
> them static.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pankaj Dubey <pankaj.dubey@samsung.com>
> ---
>   arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c |    6 +++---
>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
> index b32a907..2388ee4 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
> @@ -198,7 +198,7 @@ static struct map_desc exynos5_iodesc[] __initdata = {
>   	},
>   };
>
> -void exynos_restart(enum reboot_mode mode, const char *cmd)
> +static void exynos_restart(enum reboot_mode mode, const char *cmd)
>   {
>   	struct device_node *np;
>   	u32 val = 0x1;
> @@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ void __init exynos_cpufreq_init(void)
>   	platform_device_register_simple("exynos-cpufreq", -1, NULL, 0);
>   }
>
> -void __init exynos_init_late(void)
> +static void __init exynos_init_late(void)
>   {
>   	if (of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos5440"))
>   		/* to be supported later */
> @@ -296,7 +296,7 @@ static void __init exynos_map_io(void)
>   		iotable_init(exynos5250_iodesc, ARRAY_SIZE(exynos5250_iodesc));
>   }
>
> -void __init exynos_init_io(void)
> +static void __init exynos_init_io(void)
>   {
>   	debug_ll_io_init();
>
>

This patch seems to be irrelevant to the rest of this series. Anyway, 
the changes itself are fine, except that I can see more functions that 
could be made static as well:
  - exynos_cpuidle_init(),
  - exynos_cpufreq_init().

In fact, they both could be probably eliminated, as they are just 
oneliners doing things that could be done in exynos_dt_machine_init() 
directly.

So, if you are doing this kind of cleanup, you could do this as well and 
probably also replace platform_device + platform_device_register() with 
platform_device_register_simple() for cpuidle, to reduce line count and 
make it consistent with cpufreq.

Best regards,
Tomasz