Messages in this thread | | | From | Arnd Bergmann <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] ARM: at91: Add armv7m support | Date | Thu, 20 Oct 2016 15:23:19 +0200 |
| |
On Thursday, October 20, 2016 12:26:21 PM CEST Alexandre Belloni wrote: > > On 20/10/2016 at 11:52:20 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote : > > On Thursday, October 20, 2016 11:41:32 AM CEST Alexandre Belloni wrote: > > > + > > > +static void __init samx7_dt_device_init(void) > > > +{ > > > + struct soc_device *soc; > > > + struct device *soc_dev = NULL; > > > + > > > + soc = at91_soc_init(samx7_socs); > > > + if (soc) > > > + soc_dev = soc_device_to_device(soc); > > > + > > > + of_platform_populate(NULL, of_default_bus_match_table, NULL, soc_dev); > > > +} > > > > This was initially the idea for the soc_device, but we've stopped > > using it as the parent for the on-chip devices a while ago. > > > > Just register the device for identification here, and use > > of_platform_default_populate with a NULL parent as most others do. > > > > We should also investigate whether we can convert the three other > > at91 variants to do the same without breaking expectations in user space. > > > > My opinion is that we could just remove the whole at91_soc_init stuff > but I think Nicolas still wants the two info lines to be printed for > debugging/support purposes. I'm not sure how much this is used anyway > and I don't find the sysfs attributes to be particularly useful. > > Also, removing soc.c is a 10% reduction of the code in mach-at91 >
Having the soc_device driver is very valuable in order to have an interface to be used from user space (and soon from the kernel) to look up the exact SoC type in a generic way, so I'd definitely want to keep that, though we may want to move that driver to drivers/soc/.
Arnd
| |