[PATCH] [ARM] kirkwood: combine support for openrd base/client support

[alex@digriz.org.uk (Alexander Clouter)]

Hi,

* Dieter Kiermaier <dk-arm-linux@gmx.de> [2009-10-09 16:00:44+0200]:
>
> [snipped]
>
> > +static void __init openrd_init(void)
> > +{
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Basic setup. Needs to be called early.
> > +	 */
> > +	kirkwood_init();
> > +	kirkwood_mpp_conf(openrd_mpp_config);
> > +
> > +	kirkwood_uart0_init();
> > +	kirkwood_nand_init(ARRAY_AND_SIZE(openrd_nand_parts), 25);
> > +
> > +	kirkwood_ehci_init();
> > +
> > +	kirkwood_ge00_init(&openrd_ge00_data);
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_MACH_OPENRD_CLIENT
> > +	if (machine_is_openrd_client())
> > +		kirkwood_ge01_init(&openrd_ge01_data);
> > +#endif
> 
> shouldn't it be enough to have the if(machine_is.... statement?
> I didn't see why you test #ifdef, too?
>
the struct 'openrd_ge01_data' is wrapped in 
#ifdef CONFIG_MACH_OPENRD_CLIENT too and only exists if you want the 
board support for it.  So although machine_is_openrd_client() will 
exist, the compiler will barf that openrd_ge01_data does not exist; the 
alternative is to have it grumble (when you do not want the Client 
support) that there is an un-used struct floating about.

I was under the impression the latter is considered worse than the 
former, I personally am not bothered either way.
 
> Additionally it would be nice, if you could integrate the i2c / pcie 
> init in your patch? Please see Simons patch at:
>
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2009-October/001950.html
> 
I knew someone was going to say that :)  Will do though, so 'watch this 
space'.

Cheers

-- 
Alexander Clouter
.sigmonster says: Vini, vidi, Linux!
                  		-- Unknown source