From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com (Maxime Ripard) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 11:15:20 +0200 Subject: [GIT PULL] at91: drivers for 3.18 #2 In-Reply-To: <26517543.McM8Q5P0vn@wuerfel> References: <1409934969-11584-1-git-send-email-nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> <201409052325.11709.arnd@arndb.de> <20140908092642.GB20883@lukather> <26517543.McM8Q5P0vn@wuerfel> Message-ID: <20140909091520.GJ3804@lukather> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 11:52:35AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Monday 08 September 2014 11:26:42 Maxime Ripard wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 11:25:11PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Friday 05 September 2014, Nicolas Ferre wrote: > > > > Arnd, Olof, Kevin, > > > > > > > > This pull-request is focused on the work that Maxime did for migrating our timer > > > > (PIT) to the clocksource sub-system. A big cleanup happened which allows us to > > > > be even closer to the point when we have only the bare minimum in our formerly > > > > crowded mach-at91 directory. > > > > > > > > This pull-request goes on top of the "drivers" one already sent to you on Sept. > > > > 01st. > > > > > > Hmm, I'm not too happy to see more uses of early_platform_*, I was hoping > > > we could kill that off in the long run. This is only used for the legacy > > > board files, not for DT, right? > > > > Yes, the DT uses the usual CLOCKSOURCE_OF_DECLARE mechanism. > > > > I wasn't aware that early_platform drivers were in the killzone, but > > I'm definitely aware that global custom exported functions are, hence > > why I went this way. > > I don't think it has been discussed much on the mailing list or IRC. > The early platform devices have not been used much outside of arch/sh > and arch/arm/mach-shmobile, and those only use it for clocksource and > serial. That's what I found, yes. > Now we have a new method for both of these, at least with DT, so > my impression is that we won't need the early_platform support in > the future. I agree with that. I only see the early platform stuff as a temporary measure for board files, before they're removed. > One of the problems with the current interface is that it requires > statically declaring platform_device structures, which is something > that has been on Greg's list of device model antipatterns for a long > time. I didn't find any difference with how you declare platform_devices compared to the old-usual way in board files, or was it something on the list too ? :) Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: