From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yw0-f177.google.com (mail-yw0-f177.google.com [209.85.211.177]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D33F4B7D0A for ; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 03:22:36 +1100 (EST) Received: by ywh7 with SMTP id 7so1039871ywh.26 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:22:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: glikely@secretlab.ca In-Reply-To: <20100318154747.GA7767@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> References: <20100318144836.21082.93040.stgit@angua> <20100318152250.21082.35352.stgit@angua> <20100318154747.GA7767@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> From: Grant Likely Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:22:14 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [V2 PATCH 08/10] arch/powerpc: Remove obsolete dev_archdata.of_node and of_devce.node To: avorontsov@ru.mvista.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, michal.simek@petalogix.com, microblaze-uclinux@itee.uq.edu.au, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, davem@davemloft.net List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > Hi Grant, > > On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 09:22:50AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: >> Both dev_archdata.of_node and of_device.node are duplications of the >> device.of_node value. =A0This patch removes them. > > Yeah, they're plain duplications since you introduced dev.of_node. > I wonder what was the problem with using dev.archdata.of_node? > Why dev.of_node is better? CONFIG_OF support is not going to be an arch-specific thing any longer. The code is being generalized, and I'm removing as many things as possible that arch code needs to add to enable CONFIG_OF. That includes the dev_archdata element. The impact of moving of_node from dev_archdata to device is pretty small anyway. Most current users are getting the device node from of_device.node instead of archdata. The number of dev_archdata users is comparatively small. > Also, by using dev.of_node directly you have to introduce ugly > #ifdefs in the non-OF code (as in i2c patch), which you don't > need with transparent archdata and accessors, which you've just > removed: The #ifdefs are only needed in the i2c code because the i2c API doesn't currently support separate allocation and registration of i2c devices. With separate allocation and registration, the of_i2c code could set the device node pointer directly without touching the common i2c code at all (like how of_register_spi_devices handles it). I do plan to write a patch to do this, but that is a task for another patch series. g.