lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 11/18] ARM: at91/rtc-at91sam9: each SoC can select the RTT device to use
On 18/02/12 04:50, Nicolas Ferre wrote:

> From: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>
>
> For the RTT as RTC driver rtc-at91sam9, the platform_device structure
> is filled during SoC initialization. This will allow to convert this
> RTC driver as a standard platform driver.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>
> Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>
> ---
> arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9260_devices.c | 11 +++++
> arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9261_devices.c | 10 +++++
> arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9263_devices.c | 25 ++++++++++++
> arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9g45_devices.c | 10 +++++
> arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9rl_devices.c | 10 +++++
> drivers/rtc/rtc-at91sam9.c | 61 ++++-------------------------
> 6 files changed, 75 insertions(+), 52 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9260_devices.c b/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9260_devices.c
> index b93a337..2071017 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9260_devices.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9260_devices.c
> @@ -728,8 +728,19 @@ static struct platform_device at91sam9260_rtt_device = {
> .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(rtt_resources),
> };
>
> +
> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RTC_DRV_AT91SAM9)
> +static void __init at91_add_device_rtt_rtc(void)
> +{
> + at91sam9260_rtt_device.name = "rtc-at91sam9";
> +}


Nitpickish: This function doesn't _add_ anything. It would probably be
better called at91_init_device_rtt_rtc. Same goes for the other "add"
functions in this patch.

> +#else
> +static void __init at91_add_device_rtt_rtc(void) {}
> +#endif
> +
> static void __init at91_add_device_rtt(void)
> {
> + at91_add_device_rtt_rtc();
> platform_device_register(&at91sam9260_rtt_device);
> }


Does this work by setting the rtt device name iff
CONFIG_RTC_DRV_AT91SAM9 is set? If so, it seems a bit ugly. Why bother
doing the platform_device_register at all if you know it isn't going to
do anything? Shouldn't the at91sam9260_rrt_device struct declaration and
the platform_device_register all be conditional on CONFIG_RTC_DRV_AT91SAM9?

~Ryan




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-02-20 01:35    [W:0.126 / U:8.928 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site