[PATCH 1/4] device: update id support to allow device without id

[Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD]

On 07:26 Thu 18 Aug     , Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 07:36:04AM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> > as in linux use -1 for this
> > 
> > as example on bus we may have only one device so no need to have
> > devname<number>
> > 
> > for automatic id use -2 now
> > udpate all the device that use -1 to -2
> > 
> > device that really want -1 will have to update later
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj at jcrosoft.com>
> > ---
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/boards/a9m2410/a9m2410.c b/arch/arm/boards/a9m2410/a9m2410.c
> > index 44ac44b..0d26da9 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/boards/a9m2410/a9m2410.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/boards/a9m2410/a9m2410.c
> > @@ -131,14 +131,14 @@ static int a9m2410_devices_init(void)
> >  	writel(reg, MISCCR);
> >  
> >  	/* ----------- the devices the boot loader should work with -------- */
> > -	add_generic_device("s3c24x0_nand", -1, NULL, S3C24X0_NAND_BASE, 0,
> > +	add_generic_device("s3c24x0_nand", -2, NULL, S3C24X0_NAND_BASE, 0,
> >  			   IORESOURCE_MEM, &nand_info);
> 
> -1 has a special meaning without being a define, but we should not
> introduce another arbitrary numbered special meaning.
we can add a proper define

> 
> But I don't think we want this anyway. In a later patch you convert
> all drivers/devices to platform_*_register without having a
> platform_device. If we want to go this way we should go it all the
> way and have a struct platform_device which embeds a struct device_d.
> The 'id' field would then be a part of the platform_device rather
> than the device itself.
> The 'id' field is only present because we have no better way of
> numbering the instances of devices on a platform bus. With PCI/USB
> devices this numbering would come from the position on the bus.
I chosse to do it in two step for platfrom_device

I first switch everyone to the function and then introduce the new struct
I've not yet finish completly the new struct but it's on its way

Best Regards,
J.