[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 09/10] MCDE: Add build files and bus
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:05:50PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:48:34AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 06:40:49PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > There's lots of static devices, not only platform devices, in the ARM
> > > tree. It's going to be a hell of a lot of work to fix this all up
> > > properly.
> >
> > I agree, it's been abused for many years this way :(
> I don't agree that it is abuse - it was something explicitly allowed by
> the original device model design by Patrick, with the condition that
> such a device was never unregistered. That's exactly the way we treat
> these devices.

I understand Pat allowed this, I just don't agree that it's the correct
thing to do :)

-mm had a patch for a long time that would throw up warnings if you ever
did this for x86 so that arch should be clean of this issue by now.

> What I'm slightly concerned about is that this is going to needlessly
> bloat the kernel - we're going to have to find some other way to store
> this information, and create devices from that - which means additional
> code to do the creation, and data structures for it to create these from.
> There will be additional wastage from kmalloc as kmalloc doesn't allocate
> just the size you ask for, but normally a power of two which will contain
> the size.
> That could potentially mean that as the device structure is 216 bytes,
> kmalloc will use the 256 byte allocation size, which means a wastage of
> 40 bytes per device structure. On top of that goes the size of
> resources with the allocation slop on top for that, and then there's
> another allocation for the platform data.
> Has anyone considered these implications before making this choice?

Yes, I have, which is one reason I haven't done this type of change yet.
I need to figure out a way to not drasticly increase the size and still
make it easy and simple for the platform and driver write their code.

It's a work in progress, but wherever possible, I encourage people to
not make 'struct device' static.


greg k-h

 \ /
  Last update: 2010-12-01 00:13    [W:0.056 / U:0.532 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site