At Mon, 27 Apr 2015 10:54:24 +0200,
Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> On Monday 27 April 2015 14:35:13 Yoshinori Sato wrote:
> > +static struct platform_device sci0_device = {
> > + .name = "sh-sci",
> > + .id = 0,
> > + .resource = sci0_resources,
> > + .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(sci0_resources),
> > + .dev = {
> > + .platform_data = &sci0_platform_data,
> > + },
> > +};
> > +
> > +static struct platform_device sci1_device = {
> > + .name = "sh-sci",
> > + .id = 1,
> > + .resource = sci1_resources,
> > + .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(sci1_resources),
> > + .dev = {
> > + .platform_data = &sci1_platform_data,
> > + },
> > +};
>
> You should generally not define 'platform_device' structure statically.
> Generally, all new architectures should pass a dtb blob from the
> boot loader that contains the device definitions outside of the
> kernel binary.
>
> If you don't expect to use h8300 with a lot of external peripherals,
> you can also use platform_device_register_simple() and related functions
> to register the platform device here, which lets you remove the
> static definition.
OK.
> > +void __init early_device_init(void)
> > +{
> > + early_platform_add_devices(early_devices,
> > + ARRAY_SIZE(early_devices));
> > +}
>
> I would like to eventually remove the early_platform_add_devices()
> interface, and use some other mechanism here. Can you try either using
> devicetree to probe those devices like ARM does, or just calling into
> the drivers manually?
I think it's better to do after a while to DT, so it's considered.
> In case of the sci, using the new 'earlycon' framework is probably the
> best idea, and for the timer, just call the probe() function directly
> instead of going through the whole early_platform_add_devices
> and early_platform_driver_probe() dance.
>
> Arnd
>
OK.
Thanks.
--
Yoshinori Sato
<ysato@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
