From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Horman Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 23:11:13 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] ARM: shmobile: r8a7778: cleanup registration of sh_eth Message-Id: <20130717231113.GC8154@verge.net.au> List-Id: References: <87li5dfqft.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> In-Reply-To: <87li5dfqft.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-sh@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 03:05:28PM +0400, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > Hello. > > On 12-07-2013 4:56, Simon Horman wrote: > > >>>sh_eth driver which needs platform data at the time of > >>>registration is used from BockW only. > >>>Now, ARM/shmobile aims to support DT, > >>>and the C code base board support will be removed in the future. > >>>The driver registration method which needs platform data > >>>and which is not shared complicates codes. > >>>This patch registers it on board code as cleanup C code > > >>>Signed-off-by: Kuninori Morimoto > > >> NAK. > > >Please provide some reasoning for your objection to this change. > >Likewise for other patches in this series to which you have replied > >in the same manner. I for one do not understand what it is you object to. > > Sorry, I was just out of words when I saw this. I for one do not > understand how this change will help the DT support and to me it > seems no more than a pointless churn and step backward from what we > had. Under no circumstances I will accept this change -- I'm totally > opposed to the idea of moving the SoC devices to the board code. Hi, I believe that the crux of your concern is that the way that SH ethernet support has been added recently is to place SoC portions in setup-xxx.c and board-specific portions into board-YYY.c That much seems reasonable to me. And furthermore you don't see how this change aids adding DT support. This question also seems reasonable to me. Magnus, Morimoto-san, could you explain the motivation for this change more clearly?