From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com (Laurent Pinchart) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 09:53:13 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 10/14] ARM: shmobile: Rename to emev2_init_early(), use smp_set_ops() In-Reply-To: References: <20130809094748.6530.16511.sendpatchset@w520> <10195347.M6JWNyZrex@avalon> Message-ID: <1559583.u8rKlUOvi3@avalon> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Magnus, On Wednesday 28 August 2013 16:03:23 Magnus Damm wrote: > On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Friday 09 August 2013 18:49:36 Magnus Damm wrote: > >> From: Magnus Damm > >> > >> Rename emev2_init_delay() into emev2_init_early() > >> to make the function name show that more than just > >> delay setup will happen. > >> > >> Also, instead of specifying the smp ops in DT_MACHINE > >> convert the EMEV2 SoC code to install the smp ops > >> from emev2_init_early(). > > > > Could you please explain in the commit message why this is needed ? Same > > comment for the other patches in this series. > > I personally think it is neat to use as few callbacks as possible in > the DT_MACHINE. Hooking in SMP ops in ->init_early() means that the > boards now are unaware if SMP is used or not - and it makes sense to > me to write board code that is independent of SMP. That's a good enough explanation, I'd just like it to be included in the commit message. > Anyway, I suspect that Olof prefers to use smp_ops() instead, so I think > these patches just should be dropped. I suppose that's for you to sort out with him :-) -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart