Subject: Re: [PATCH]change 'struct device' -> platform_data to firmware_data
From: Li Shaohua <shaohua.li@intel.com>
To: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
Cc: Deepak Saxena <dsaxena@plexity.net>, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, rmk@arm.linux.org.uk
In-Reply-To: <20050112050617.GB976@kroah.com>
References: <1105498626.26324.14.camel@sli10-desk.sh.intel.com>
	 <20050112035446.GA11251@plexity.net>  <20050112050617.GB976@kroah.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-Id: <1105506942.3081.6.camel@sli10-desk.sh.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:15:42 +0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1315
Lines: 27

On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 13:06, Greg KH wrote:
> 
> > If we are doing things incorrectly, I am not argueing that our usage
> > has to the way it sits. We could create a new generic serial_device and 
> > flash_device structures and subsystems for these, but that requires 
> > rewriting drivers and board ports; however, we need enough time
> > to work with appropriate subsystem maintainers to do so. My suggestion
> > is to add a new firmware_data field for use by ACPI ATM while we
> > clean things up in ARM world if so required.  Since ACPI is non-existent 
> > on ARM systems, another option is that we keep using the renamed data
> > structure as we have been doing. /me votes for this option
> 
> I like the "just add a firmware_data" field option too.  It doesn't
> break any existing code, and the term "firmware" tells driver authors to
> back away from it and not touch it (and we need to add the proper
> documentation saying this.)
If nobody insists on the intent of platform_data, I'll be glad to add a
new field. It makes things more easy.

Thanks,
Shaohua

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/