Re: [PATCH 2/4] ARM: mxc: migrate mach-mx5 gpio driver to gpio-mxc

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Tuesday 31 May 2011, Shawn Guo wrote:
> > The above tables are pretty crazy, and they only get worse later in the series
> > when the other SoCs are added. Is it really worth it to have a common initcall
> > entry for the various SoCs here?
> > 
> This common initcall seems a good place to concentrate the gpio device
> registration.  It's easy to look at the common/different things among
> these SoCs.  The only problem you reminded me is the scanning of the
> long cpu_is_mx list.  It can be optimized a little bit by sorting the
> list from the latest (most used) SoC to the oldest (least used) one,
> and breaking out the scanning immediately when hitting one.

No, better make them separate functions.

> > It'd seem cleaner to me to just call the registration function for the
> > family you're running from in per-family-init code such as where it was
> > removed above (irq init, which makes some sense since the gpios provide
> > interrupt sources as well).
> > 
> I just gave it a test, and it's not working at all.  (too early
> to register device in irq init?)

Just open-code the mxc_add_mxc_gpio() by moving the individual calls to
mxc_add_gpio() into the respective callers. Having a global
mxc_add_mxc_gpio() function that does something different for each
caller seems entirely pointless to me.

Best think of it from the point of view how it should look like when
everything is converted to the device tree. In that case, you would
have a function scanning the device tree that calls mxc_add_gpio
for each entry.

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