On Tuesday 30 November 2010, Linus Walleij wrote:
quoted text
> 2010/11/26 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>:
> 
> > * When you say that the devices are static, I hope you do not mean
> >  static in the C language sense. We used to allow devices to be
> >  declared as "static struct" and registered using
> >  platform_device_register (or other bus specific functions). This
> >  is no longer valid and we are removing the existing users, do not
> >  add new ones. When creating a platform device, use
> >  platform_device_register_simple or platform_device_register_resndata.
> 
> Is this part of the generic ARM runtime multi-platform kernel
> and device trees shebang?
> 
> The Ux500 still isn't in that sector, it needs extensive rewriting
> of arch/arm/mach-ux500 to be done first, so as to support e.g.
> U8500 and U5500 with a single kernel image.
> 
> Trying to skin that cat that as part of this review is a bit too
> much to ask IMO, I'd rather have the author of this driver
> adapt to whatever platform data registration mechanism is
> in place for the merge window. Else it needs fixing as part
> of a bigger endavour to root out compile-time platform
> configuration.

The 'no static devices' rule is something that Greg brought up
at the embedded developer session during PlumbersConf this year,
I wasn't aware of the problem before that either.

It is not related to the multi-platform kernel work and it's
not ARM specific.

Maybe Greg can give a short explanation of the impact of this.
AFAIR, static device definitions still work, but there are
plans to remove that capability in the future.

	Arnd
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/