On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 12:09:45AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 01:55:55AM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 03:11:57PM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> > > Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > >
> > > > Help the typechecker do its job. As we have only one (at the moment...)
> > > > And make it:
> > > >
> > > > +struct omap_device;
> > > >
> > > > struct pdev_archdata {
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP
> > > > + struct omap_device *omap;
> > > > +#endif
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > for bonus points, so we only get the additional pointer for OMAP.
> > >
> > > OK, will do it this way.
> >
> > this has the tendency to grow larger, no ? What if all other ARMs decide
> > to add their own pointers there too ?
>
> Their pointers for what? It's only OMAP which has this special omap_device
> thing. Should that spread, instead of adding more pointers here, the work
> should be to consolidate between those various implementations.
+1
g.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
