On Tuesday 30 November 2010, Linus Walleij wrote: > 2010/11/26 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>: > > > * When you say that the devices are static, I hope you do not mean > > static in the C language sense. We used to allow devices to be > > declared as "static struct" and registered using > > platform_device_register (or other bus specific functions). This > > is no longer valid and we are removing the existing users, do not > > add new ones. When creating a platform device, use > > platform_device_register_simple or platform_device_register_resndata. > > Is this part of the generic ARM runtime multi-platform kernel > and device trees shebang? > > The Ux500 still isn't in that sector, it needs extensive rewriting > of arch/arm/mach-ux500 to be done first, so as to support e.g. > U8500 and U5500 with a single kernel image. > > Trying to skin that cat that as part of this review is a bit too > much to ask IMO, I'd rather have the author of this driver > adapt to whatever platform data registration mechanism is > in place for the merge window. Else it needs fixing as part > of a bigger endavour to root out compile-time platform > configuration. The 'no static devices' rule is something that Greg brought up at the embedded developer session during PlumbersConf this year, I wasn't aware of the problem before that either. It is not related to the multi-platform kernel work and it's not ARM specific. Maybe Greg can give a short explanation of the impact of this. AFAIR, static device definitions still work, but there are plans to remove that capability in the future. Arnd _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
