On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 12:28:19PM +0200, Marco Felsch wrote:
> ---
> Hi,
>
> this is just a proposal to change the current linker array approach to
> an initcall approach. Why? Because now we can simply register a
> board-driver without having to list each compatible.
>
> I used the pure_initcall without adding a new one, since the
> documentation says that pure_initcalls are used to init variables. In
> our case we init boards_list.
>
> Regards,
> Marco
>
>
> -extern struct deep_probe_entry __barebox_deep_probe_start;
> -extern struct deep_probe_entry __barebox_deep_probe_end;
> +#define deep_probe_enable_board_driver(drv) \
> + _deep_probe_enable_driver(__UNIQUE_ID(deepprobe),drv)
>
> -#define __BAREBOX_DEEP_PROBE_ENABLE(_entry,_compatible) \
> - static const struct deep_probe_entry _entry \
> - __attribute__ ((used,section (".barebox_deep_probe_" __stringify(_entry)))) = { \
> - .compatible = _compatible, \
> - }
> +#define _deep_probe_enable_compatible(id,compatible) \
> + static int __init id(void) \
> + { \
> + return deep_probe_enable_board(NULL,compatible);\
> + } \
> + pure_initcall(id)
>
> -#define BAREBOX_DEEP_PROBE_ENABLE(_compatible) \
> - __BAREBOX_DEEP_PROBE_ENABLE(__UNIQUE_ID(deepprobe),_compatible)
I like the version with the linker array as we don't add a whole bunch
of new initcalls. Why not simply replace the _compatible argument with a
pointer to a of_device_id array?
Sascha
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
