[PATCH] at91: Support for at91rm9200: core chip & board support

[Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD]

On 17:36 Mon 09 May     , Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 04:48:38PM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> > On 16:25 Mon 09 May     , Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > > > +
> > > > +static struct device_d sdram_dev = {
> > > > +	.id = -1,
> > > > +	.name = "mem",
> > > > +	.map_base = AT91_CHIPSELECT_1,
> > > > +	.platform_data = &ram_pdata,
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > +void at91_add_device_sdram(u32 size)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	sdram_dev.size = size;
> > > > +	register_device(&sdram_dev);
> > > > +	armlinux_add_dram(&sdram_dev);
> > > > +}
> > > 
> > > We already have this function in the tree four times and there is
> > > nothing at91 specific in it. Please stop duplicating it.
> > yes but the structure is local and can not be shared between SOC
> 
> Just move both the function and the structure to a common place.
> Arguably this is not even at91 specific. It should be usable by other
> architectures aswell (this would need dynamic allocation of the data
> structure and id counting).
I'm not really a fan of dynamic resources allocation but this is not the scope
of this patch
This shoulb be done in a second time
> 
> > > > +
> > > > +void __init at91_add_device_eth(struct at91_ether_platform_data *data)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	if (!data)
> > > > +		return;
> > > 
> > > Why this check here? I'd rather see a crash when someone calls this
> > > function without data than just nothing happening.
> > i prefer to keep the code running and do not register the ethernet device
> 
> It does not make sense. No board calls this function without valid data,
> because it's not working.
bug hanging is a bad habit
print something ok but not hanging
> 
> > > 
> > > > +
> > > > +void __init at91_register_uart(unsigned id, unsigned pins)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	switch (id) {
> > > 
> > > This id dispatching does not make much sense. You should export
> > > the functions for the individual uarts instead. This makes this funcion
> > > disappear completely and gives the linker a chance to throw away the
> > > code for unused uarts.
> > It's the same API as in the kernel I do want to keep then sync
> > I do not want to have to maintain 2 implemetations for few bytes
> 
> Honestly this can't be the excuse for everything. Then go out and fix
> the kernel aswell. Arm folks have great interest in shrinking the code
> footprint lately.
sorry here I do not think of any improvment even in the kernel to have one
function per uart resources it will not reduce the footprint so much but just
increase the number of API.

At kernel level I will not accept again on at91 to have 1000 of functions to
register each resources. On contrary I'll try to recude it.

Best Regards,
J.