Hi, On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 09:31:24PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > * Alan Stern | 2011-08-25 13:39:25 [-0400]: > > >It wouldn't have to be linked to every ehci-<arch>.o; only the one > >that the kernel is configured for. Right now you can't build more than > >one of them, right? Otherwise there would be multiple definitions for > >the PLATFORM_DRIVER symbol. > > > >For that matter, why does ehci-hcd.c have separate code for registering > >OF_PLATFORM_DRIVER and XILINX_OF_PLATFORM_DRIVER? Why don't they use > >the same old PLATFORM_DRIVER symbol as everything else? > > The first drop of the xilinx code was based on platform device. Arnd > told them to use device tree and so they did. I think that they did not > convert everything and left it as it with the extra registration > routine. Later the separate OF probing got merged into OF. At this point > the code could be merged into a single platform probe. > I've been looking into ehci-* shortly and it does not seem to be that > big a deal. If you ignore PM for a while than the only thing that > differs is the reset/setup callback where some of the chip need extra > love. The remaining part where you do register, obtain memory address, I'm quite confident that "extra love" is platform-specific hookup (like enabling parent clocks and the like) and those could be phased out to e.g. runtime_resume() implementation of the core platform_driver ? -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
