[PATCH V5 18/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Pass the AFTR callback to the platform_data

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Friday 11 April 2014, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> No more dependency on the arch code. The platform_data field is used to set the
> PM callback as the other cpuidle drivers.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano at linaro.org>
> Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar at linaro.org>
> Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie at samsung.com>

This has just shown up in linux-next and broken randconfig builds.

> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
> index fe8dac8..d22f0e4 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
> @@ -221,8 +221,9 @@ void exynos_restart(enum reboot_mode mode, const char *cmd)
>  }
>  
>  static struct platform_device exynos_cpuidle = {
> -       .name           = "exynos_cpuidle",
> -       .id             = -1,
> +       .name              = "exynos_cpuidle",
> +       .dev.platform_data = exynos_enter_aftr,
> +       .id                = -1,
>  };
>  

This is wrong on many levels, can we please do this properly?

* The exynos_enter_aftr function is compiled conditionally, so you can't just
  reference it from generic code, or you get a link error.
* 'static struct platform_device ...' has been deprecated for at least a decade,
  stop doing that. For any platform devices that get registered, there is
  platform_device_register_simple().
* There shouldn't need to be a platform_device to start with, this should all
  come from DT. We can't do this on arm64 anyway, so any code that may be
  shared between arm32 and arm64 should have proper abstractions.

Daniel, you should really know better than this. Why are you still adding
code to drivers/cpuidle that uses legacy platform devices rather than DT
probing?

	Arnd