Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] drivers: make early_platform code SuperH-specific

[Rich Felker]

On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 03:00:31PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 11:29:11AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > Some time ago I started a discussion about the need for a proper early device
> > probing mechanism[1]. One that would be based on real platform drivers and
> > support both platform data and device tree.
> > 
> > While we're far from reaching any consensus on the implementation, Arnd
> > suggested that I start off by moving the SuperH-specific early platform
> > drivers implementation to arch/sh[2].
> > 
> > This series is the first attempt at making way for a new, less hacky
> > implementation.
> > 
> > The first patch moves all the early_platform code to arch/sh.
> > 
> > The second patch prefixes all early_platform symbols with 'sh_'.
> > 
> > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/4/26/657
> > [2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/4/27/239
> > 
> > v1 -> v2:
> > - certain drivers are compiled for arm/mach-shmobile too - we need to
> >   add ifdefs for CONFIG_SUPERH around early_platform calls
> > 
> > v2 -> v3:
> > - added a stub for is_early_platform_device() which always returns false
> >   on non-SuperH architectures
> > 
> > v3 -> v4:
> > - rebased on top of v5.4-rc1
> > - removed patches that are already upstream from the series
> > 
> > Bartosz Golaszewski (2):
> >   drivers: move the early platform device support to arch/sh
> >   sh: add the sh_ prefix to early platform symbols
> 
> I like this, any objection from anyone if I take this in my driver-core
> tree for 5.5-rc1?

I don't think I have any objection. It will probably make gratuitous
merge conflicts with Sato-san's old device tree sh4 work when we get
back to finishing that, but that's not really a big deal.

Rich