From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org (Greg Kroah-Hartman)
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 10:37:13 -0700
Subject: [PATCH v2] platform: Make platform_bus device a platform device
In-Reply-To: <1406050206.25343.87.camel@hornet>
References: <20140721184007.GB572@kroah.com>
 <1406023327-18525-1-git-send-email-pawel.moll@arm.com>
 <20140722171013.GA6605@kroah.com>
 <1406050206.25343.87.camel@hornet>
Message-ID: <20140722173713.GA8959@kroah.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 06:30:06PM +0100, Pawel Moll wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-07-22 at 18:10 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:02:07AM +0100, Pawel Moll wrote:
> > > ... describing the root of the device tree, so one can write
> > > a platform driver initializing the platform.
> > > 
> > > All references to platform_bus device have been fixed up,
> > > although in most cases they could be simply removed or
> > > replaced by NULL (platform devices with no parent are adopted
> > > by main platform_bus device automagically).
> > 
> > In looking at this some more, I think all of these should be made NULL,
> > why are we exporting this symbol at all?
> 
> I think there are about 3 non-obvious uses of it, which would probably
> need looking into. All other ones that simply do of_platform_populate()
> or platform_device_register*() with platform_bus as a parent, which has
> exactly the same effect as it was NULL.
> 
> I can imagine situations where one would want to walk the device
> hierarchy stopping at platform_bus, how I'm not sure how "legitimate"
> that would be.

Not at all "legitimate", use the functions the kernel provides for you
if you really wanted to do that instead of trying to do it yourself.

> I'll post v3 with NULLs where I think it is enough so we can see the
> other cases.

Thanks, that would be great.

greg k-h