From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1757484Ab0CORtV (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:49:21 -0400
Received: from eddie.linux-mips.org ([78.24.191.182]:54993 "EHLO
	eddie.linux-mips.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752707Ab0CORtS (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:49:18 -0400
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:49:05 +0100
From: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
To: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@pengutronix.de>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
       kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
       "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] arch/mips/txx9/generic: init dynamic bin_attribute
 structures
Message-ID: <20100315174905.GC20055@linux-mips.org>
References: <1268377431-11671-1-git-send-email-w.sang@pengutronix.de>
 <1268377431-11671-2-git-send-email-w.sang@pengutronix.de>
 <20100312183450.GC8736@core.coreip.homeip.net>
 <20100313022855.GD4034@pengutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20100313022855.GD4034@pengutronix.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 03:28:55AM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:

> > Regarding all 3 - it looks like these dynamically alocated attributes
> > could be converted to statically allocated ones. I'd recommend doing
> > that instead (in fact, I posted patch for the firmware_class couple days
> > ago).
> 
> I agree for the firmware-patch. Regarding the MIPS one, 'size' might differ and
> 'private' will differ per instance. Regarding the RTC driver, 'size' might also
> differ. I don't know if somebody really wants two RTCs or the SRAM for MIPS can
> be instantiated more than once. Unless somebody with actual hardware jumps in,
> I'd say better safe than sorry.

On the txx9 platform you've posted the patch for additional RTCs or SRAMs
would not normally be expected.  On other platforms such as IP27 there
would be one per node that is potencially very many.

  Ralf