[PATCH] ARM: kirkwood: add LaCie Network Space Lite v2 support

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Mon, 7 Nov 2011, Simon Guinot wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 02:42:00PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 03:39:59PM +0100, Simon Guinot wrote:
> > > Hi Russel,
> > > 
> > > On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 10:35:06AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:29:50AM +0100, Christophe Vu-Brugier wrote:
> > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_MACH_NETSPACE_LITE_V2
> > > > > +MACHINE_START(NETSPACE_LITE_V2, "LaCie Network Space Lite v2")
> > > > > +	.atag_offset	= 0x100,
> > > > > +	.init_machine	= netspace_v2_init,
> > > > > +	.map_io		= kirkwood_map_io,
> > > > > +	.init_early	= kirkwood_init_early,
> > > > > +	.init_irq	= kirkwood_init_irq,
> > > > > +	.timer		= &kirkwood_timer,
> > > > 
> > > > When the restart series is queued, you'll have to add a:
> > > > 	.restart	= kirkwood_restart,
> > > > 
> > > > here.
> > > > 
> > > > Please also order these initializers in the same order as they're
> > > > declared in struct machine_desc - the order there reflects the order in
> > > > which they're called.  They're done like that to aid peoples
> > > > understanding of the ordering there.
> > > > 
> > > > So you want .init_machine after .timer.
> > > 
> > > The Christophe's patch is consistent with the other Kirkwood machines
> > > declarations. Maybe that all this declarations should be fixed with a
> > > separate patch ?
> > 
> > Why create more work (and churn) by having to fix new introductions up?
> > Why not make sure new introductions are correct first time around.
> 
> Yes, sure. On the other hand, having different field ordering for the
> machine_desc declarations within a same file could confuse the reader
> as well.

What about a patch fixing the ordering first?


Nicolas