[PATCH 02/17] ARM: at91: use machine specific hook for late init

[Shawn Guo]

On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 07:30:01AM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> On 10:30 Sat 28 Apr     , Shawn Guo wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 04:26:01PM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> > > we discuss with Arnd we came back with 2 ideas one is to use a machine
> > > specific initcall or compatible specifc initcall
> > 
> > Do you mean an initcall with machine/compatible detection inside?  The
> > whole point of the hooks in struct machine_desc  is to save the
> > machine/compatible detection.  You already use .init_machine as
> > an arch_initcall time hook, and what .init_late provides you is just
> > a late_initcall time hook.  If you want to detect machine/compatible
> > in your late_initcall rather than using this hook, you should not
> > use .init_machine for the same reason.
> on DT we just do this
> 
I'm talking about non-DT case.  Sadly, there are still so many non-DT
board files in arch/arm/mach-at91.

> so the hook start to make not too much sense
> at machine level
> 
> as this is for nearly all of them purely soc
> 
This reminds me an argument against soc_desc stuff.  With DT adopted,
the struct machine_desc (hooks inside it) becomes purely soc specific,
so why do we need soc_desc then?

> > 
> > > or the second one is to
> > > resurect Marc patch series to introduce soc_desc
> > > 
> > This is the approach I can agree on, but isn't the patch moving one
> > step close to that, turning the late_initcall into a function which
> > can be hooked into soc specific call?
> no you touch too much file and make code expertoed where this no need of this
> 
> > 
> > > and on at91 Ill not touch it as the old style board can NOT be compiled with
> > > other soc (only one at91 soc at a time).
> > > 
> > > And I'll not fix it as we move to the DT which I fix to be able to be compiled
> > > in the multiarch kernel.
> > > 
> > It's something on your plate.  Just tell me to drop the patch from
> > the series, if you do not want it in.
> no I want it clean an ALL arch and do not duplicated code 

I do not quite understand this sentence, but I guess you are asking
me to drop the patch.  Will do.

-- 
Regards,
Shawn