From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758454Ab0BXWiQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:38:16 -0500 Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:35457 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758326Ab0BXWiP (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:38:15 -0500 Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:36:45 -0800 From: Greg KH To: Grant Likely Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, kay.sievers@vrfy.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org Subject: Re: [RFC] driver-core: Add device node pointer to struct device Message-ID: <20100224223645.GA18883@suse.de> References: <20100224210514.16289.86611.stgit@angua> <20100224214442.GB18437@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 03:09:24PM -0700, Grant Likely wrote: > On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Greg KH wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 02:10:30PM -0700, Grant Likely wrote: > >> Greg and Kay, > >> > >> This is a patch from a larger series of OF related cleanup patches.  This > >> one adds a new 'of_node' member to struct device, conditional upon > >> CONFIG_OF.  The goal is to move of_node out of archdata because all > >> arches using CONFIG_OF need it. > >> > >> Before I commit too much effort down this path, I want to get your > >> feedback.  Do you have any objections to this change to struct device? > >> > >> @@ -414,6 +415,9 @@ struct device { > >>                                            override */ > >>       /* arch specific additions */ > >>       struct dev_archdata     archdata; > >> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF > >> +     struct device_node      *of_node; > >> +#endif > > > > No objection from me, but do we really need the #ifdef here? > > I added the #ifdef because it is complete dead weight when CONFIG_OF > is not set. However, I'll defer to your preference here on what looks > cleaner w.r.t. maintenance. Ok, you can leave it as-is, that's not a problem. As long as we don't have to #ifdef the core code, it should be fine. thanks, greg k-h