[GIT PULL 2/3] ARM: tegra: move fuse code out of arch/arm

[Stephen Warren]

On 07/17/2014 11:33 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 7:45 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren at wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
>> On 07/08/2014 11:47 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 6:43 AM, Peter De Schrijver
>>> <pdeschrijver at nvidia.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 02:44:17AM +0200, Olof Johansson wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 03:23:45PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>>>> This branch moves code related to the Tegra fuses out of arch/arm and
>>>>>> into a centralized location which could be shared with ARM64. It also
>>>>>> adds support for reading the fuse data through sysfs.
>>>>>
>>>>> The new/moved misc driver isn't acked by any misc maintainer, so I can't
>>>>> take this branch.
>>>>>
>>>>> I saw no indication from searching the mailing list of that either,
>>>>> so it wasn't just a missed acked-by.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder if this code should go under drivers/soc/ instead?
>>>>
>>>> It's modelled after sunxi_sid.c which lives in drivers/misc/eeprom/.
>>>> Originally this driver was also in drivers/misc/eeprom/, but Stephen objected
>>>> and therefore it was moved to drivers/misc/fuse. I think that's the right
>>>> place still.
>>>
>>> I disagree, I think this belongs under drivers/soc. Especially since
>>> you're adding dependencies on this misc driver from other parts of the
>>> kernel / other drivers.
>>>
>>> I also don't like seeing init calls form platform code down into
>>> drivers/misc like you're adding here. Can you please look at doing
>>> that as a regular init call setup?
>>
>> I strongly disagree with using init calls for this kind of thing. There
>> are ordering dependencies between the initialization code that can only
>> be sanely managed by explicitly calling functions in a particular order;
>> there's simply no way to manage this using initcalls. This is exactly
>> why the hooks in the ARM machine descriptors exist...
> 
> Right, but there are non on 64-bit, so you need to solve it for there
> anyway. And once it's solved there, you might as well keep it common
> with 32-bit.

My assertion is that we should just do it directly on 64-bit too.
There's no reason for arm64 to deviate from what arch/arm does already.