On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 03:00:31PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 11:29:11AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Some time ago I started a discussion about the need for a proper early device > > probing mechanism[1]. One that would be based on real platform drivers and > > support both platform data and device tree. > > > > While we're far from reaching any consensus on the implementation, Arnd > > suggested that I start off by moving the SuperH-specific early platform > > drivers implementation to arch/sh[2]. > > > > This series is the first attempt at making way for a new, less hacky > > implementation. > > > > The first patch moves all the early_platform code to arch/sh. > > > > The second patch prefixes all early_platform symbols with 'sh_'. > > > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/4/26/657 > > [2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/4/27/239 > > > > v1 -> v2: > > - certain drivers are compiled for arm/mach-shmobile too - we need to > > add ifdefs for CONFIG_SUPERH around early_platform calls > > > > v2 -> v3: > > - added a stub for is_early_platform_device() which always returns false > > on non-SuperH architectures > > > > v3 -> v4: > > - rebased on top of v5.4-rc1 > > - removed patches that are already upstream from the series > > > > Bartosz Golaszewski (2): > > drivers: move the early platform device support to arch/sh > > sh: add the sh_ prefix to early platform symbols > > I like this, any objection from anyone if I take this in my driver-core > tree for 5.5-rc1? I don't think I have any objection. It will probably make gratuitous merge conflicts with Sato-san's old device tree sh4 work when we get back to finishing that, but that's not really a big deal. Rich
