From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com (Alexandre Belloni)
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 12:26:21 +0200
Subject: [PATCH v2 3/6] ARM: at91: Add armv7m support
In-Reply-To: <5506721.HBUId2vnJb@wuerfel>
References: <20161020094135.18221-1-alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com>
 <20161020094135.18221-4-alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com>
 <5506721.HBUId2vnJb@wuerfel>
Message-ID: <20161020102621.od7kkgpndooy25kz@piout.net>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Hi,

On 20/10/2016 at 11:52:20 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote :
> On Thursday, October 20, 2016 11:41:32 AM CEST Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > +
> > +static void __init samx7_dt_device_init(void)
> > +{
> > +       struct soc_device *soc;
> > +       struct device *soc_dev = NULL;
> > +
> > +       soc = at91_soc_init(samx7_socs);
> > +       if (soc)
> > +               soc_dev = soc_device_to_device(soc);
> > +
> > +       of_platform_populate(NULL, of_default_bus_match_table, NULL, soc_dev);
> > +}
> 
> This was initially the idea for the soc_device, but we've stopped
> using it as the parent for the on-chip devices a while ago.
> 
> Just register the device for identification here, and use
> of_platform_default_populate with a NULL parent as most others do.
> 
> We should also investigate whether we can convert the three other
> at91 variants to do the same without breaking expectations in user space.
> 

My opinion is that we could just remove the whole at91_soc_init stuff
but I think Nicolas still wants the two info lines to be printed for
debugging/support purposes. I'm not sure how much this is used anyway
and I don't find the sysfs attributes to be particularly useful.

Also, removing soc.c is a 10% reduction of the code in mach-at91 ;)

-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com