[PATCH v2] coresight: replicator: Use module_platform_driver

[Vaishali Thakkar]

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Mathieu Poirier
<mathieu.poirier at linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 10 July 2015 at 09:51, Vaishali Thakkar <vthakkar1994 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 8:00 PM, Mathieu Poirier
> > <mathieu.poirier at linaro.org> wrote:
> >> On 10 July 2015 at 05:47, Vaishali Thakkar <vthakkar1994 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Paul Bolle <pebolle at tiscali.nl> wrote:
> >>>> On vr, 2015-07-10 at 08:53 +0530, Vaishali Thakkar wrote:
> >>>>> I thought about this solution before sending this patch. But I was not
> >>>>> sure about it. Thanks for the explanation. I will send v3 with this
> >>>>> change.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Can I add Suggested By: Paul Bolle <pebolle at tiscali.nl>
> >>>>
> >>>> That should be "Suggested-by:". The net effect would be that, if my
> >>>> suggestion turns out to be unwise, fan mail will also hit my INBOX,
> >>>> right? Anyhow, fine with me.
> >>>
> >>> Ok. Thanks.
> >>>
> >>>> By the way, there's more module specific stuff in
> >>>> drivers/hwtracing/coresight/. And there's no tristate symbol to be found
> >>>> in its Kconfig file. So I'd guess there are a few other cleanups
> >>>> possible too, if someone cared enough to have a closer look at that.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Yes. It seems that introducing something like builtin_amba_driver()
> >>> can be useful for files which are using module_amba_driver now . But I'm
> >>> not sure if Mathieu is ok with it or not? If it seems useful to him, then I
> >>> can go for it.
> >>
> >> The ETB drivers could use a "module_amba_driver()"...
> >
> > Why? Is there any specific reason behind this?
> > How about other drivers?? Will it be beneficial to introduce
> > builtin_amba_driver() for the others?
>
> All the other drivers (aside from the replicator) have been moved to
> "module_amba_driver()" to avoid boilerplate code.  The only one that
> was forgotten is the ETB.  A fix for ETM3x is already part of the 4.2
> cycle.
>

I see. Ok.

>
> As for builtin_amba_driver(), that will be up to Russell to decide.
> Other than not calling the second half of the module_driver() macro, I
> don't see what else it could do.

I think there was a good conversation between Paul Gortmaker and other
developers when he first introduced the idea of adding such macro
(builtin_platform_driver). His commit explains that idea in a good way too.
But yes I believe that it is a matter of taste. And at the end of the day it is
upon maintainers whether such change is good for their drivers or not.
Anyways I will be happy to work on this thing if Russell or you decides
to go for builtin_amba_driver.

Thank You.

> >
> > Thank You.
> >
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Paul Bolle
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Vaishali
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Vaishali




-- 
Vaishali