On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:42:15PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
It's a work in progress, but wherever possible, I encourage people to not make 'struct device' static.
Right, so saying to ARM developers that they can't submit code which adds new static device structures is rather problematical then, and effectively brings a section of kernel development to a complete standstill - it means no support for additional ARM platforms until this issue is resolved. (This "condition" was mentioned by Arnd earlier in this thread, and was put in such a way that it was now a hard and fast rule.)
Sorry, I didn't mean for that to be mentioned that way at all, as I know the issues that are keeping this from happening.
I feel it would be better to allow the current situation to continue. If we start telling people that they can't use statically declared devices without first having an alternative, we'll end up with people inventing their own individual - and different - solutions to this problem, which could actually make the problem harder to resolve in the longer term.
Ok, but again, I do encourage, wherever possible, that people do not statically create a 'struct device'.
thanks,
greg k-h