Re: [PATCH 1/2] pmac-zilog: add platform driver

[Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>]

On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 17:39, Finn Thain <fthain@telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 10:04, Finn Thain <fthain@telegraphics.com.au>
>> wrote:
>> > Add platform driver to the pmac-zilog driver for mac 68k, putting the
>> > powermac-specific bits inside #ifdef CONFIG_PPC_PMAC.
>>
>> > --- linux-2.6.31.orig/drivers/serial/pmac_zilog.c       2009-11-17 17:07:28.000000000 +1100
>> > +++ linux-2.6.31/drivers/serial/pmac_zilog.c    2009-11-17 17:07:38.000000000 +1100
>>
>> > @@ -1427,6 +1439,8 @@ static struct uart_ops pmz_pops = {
>> >  #endif
>> >  };
>> >
>> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PPC_PMAC
>> > +
>> >  /*
>> >  * Setup one port structure after probing, HW is down at this point,
>> >  * Unlike sunzilog, we don't need to pre-init the spinlock as we don't
>> > @@ -1823,6 +1837,88 @@ next:
>> >        return 0;
>> >  }
>> >
>> > +#else
>> > +
>> > +extern struct platform_device scc_a_pdev, scc_b_pdev;
>>
>> scripts/checkpatch.pl doesn't like this extern, and it's right.
>> Can't this be found using standard platform device/driver matching?
>
> The console initcall and arch initcall order didn't permit me to easily
> gather the bootinfo data and populate the platform device resources early
> enough. (On powermacs there is the open firmware device tree, but of
> course, we don't have one.)
>
> I would like to further adopt the driver model in order to ditch the
> macintosh_config global, and I'd also like to have proper nubus device
> matching. But I think that the serial console device is a bit exceptional
> so I'm not too fussed about these two globals.

OK

> Anyway, I don't know of a better way to do the serial console but I'm open
> to suggestions.
>
>> BTW, there are a few other minor checkpatch issues with some of the
>> other patches in the series, too.
>
> I ran checkpatch on all those patches before I submitted them. I ignored
> some of the complaints about whitespace where I felt that checkpatch got
> it wrong (space character following tab character, IIRC).
>
> checkpatch found lots of mistakes that I did fix, but it can't determine
> the most human readable style in all cases, especially where consistency
> with the surrounding code is actually more conducive to readability than
> strict but sporadic conformance to simple rules would be.

Sure. I thought I saw a few other, but I'll fix them up myself.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds