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 _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
