From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 11:13:26 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v2 4/6] ARM: Samsung: Modify s3c64xx_spi{0|1|2}_set_platdata function In-Reply-To: References: <1337333613-6216-1-git-send-email-thomas.abraham@linaro.org> <1337333613-6216-5-git-send-email-thomas.abraham@linaro.org> <20120520092113.GA20652@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20120530093421.GA9947@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Message-ID: <20120530101326.GF9947@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 06:05:31PM +0800, Thomas Abraham wrote: > On 30 May 2012 17:34, Mark Brown wrote: > > Right, and there's no problem at all with using the name. ?The thing is > > that there's no need to set the name at runtime since the struct device > > being configured is always going to end up with the same name and doing > > so is just causing confusion. ?The device being registered is specific > > to the SoC already so setting the SoC name at runtime isn't needed. > I think I did not understand your point. There is only one instance of > spi platform device statically defined for all Samsung platforms. The No there isn't. You've got things like s3c64xx_device_spi0 in arch/arm/plat-samsung/devs.c (which you'd expect since the resources that are passed in for memory mapping, DMA and interrupt vary with the SoC). The bit of code I was querying just changes "s3c64xx-spi" to "s3c6410-spi" at runtime in that structure which seems like a waste of time. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: