On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 02:42:06PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Sat, Jul 13, 2024, at 05:38, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > >> One more thing I noticed: if you are doing more patches > >> to convert devices in board files to use software nodes, > >> we should probably try to move them away from static > >> platform_device definitions towards a dynamic > >> platform_device_register_simple() or similar interface > >> at the same time. > > > > Sometimes platform_device_register_full() which operates on > > platform_device_info structure is very handy, but in general > > what is the issue with statically defined devices (when they > > are never unregistered)? > > Greg has been asking for this for many years, but it has > been unrealistic in the past because of the large number > of board files using static platform devices. As far as I > understand it, having static platform devices prevents us > from better enforcing lifetime management rules on device > objects. Adding Greg to Cc in case he has something to add. Not much more to add other than "please don't do that." thanks, greg k-h
