Re: [PATCH v4 12/12] intel_mid: Moved board related code to a new file

2013-10-15 Thread David Cohen
On 10/15/2013 05:45 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: On 10/15/2013 04:53 PM, David Cohen wrote: On 10/15/2013 04:44 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: On 10/15/2013 04:42 PM, David Cohen wrote: +#define intel_mid_sfi_dev(i) \ +static const struct devs_id *__intel_mid_sfi_##i##_dev __used \ +

Re: [PATCH v4 12/12] intel_mid: Moved board related code to a new file

2013-10-15 Thread H. Peter Anvin
On 10/15/2013 04:53 PM, David Cohen wrote: > On 10/15/2013 04:44 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> On 10/15/2013 04:42 PM, David Cohen wrote: >>> >>> +#define intel_mid_sfi_dev(i) \ >>> +static const struct devs_id *__intel_mid_sfi_##i##_dev __used \ >>> +

Re: [PATCH v4 12/12] intel_mid: Moved board related code to a new file

2013-10-15 Thread David Cohen
On 10/15/2013 04:44 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: On 10/15/2013 04:42 PM, David Cohen wrote: +#define intel_mid_sfi_dev(i) \ + static const struct devs_id *__intel_mid_sfi_##i##_dev __used \ + __attribute__((__section__(".x86_intel_mid_dev.init"))) = + Any reason

Re: [PATCH v4 12/12] intel_mid: Moved board related code to a new file

2013-10-15 Thread H. Peter Anvin
On 10/15/2013 04:42 PM, David Cohen wrote: > > +#define intel_mid_sfi_dev(i) \ > + static const struct devs_id *__intel_mid_sfi_##i##_dev __used \ > + __attribute__((__section__(".x86_intel_mid_dev.init"))) = > + Any reason to not just call this "sfi_device()" or

[PATCH v4 12/12] intel_mid: Moved board related code to a new file

2013-10-15 Thread David Cohen
As Intel rolling out more SoC's after Moorestown, we need to re-structure the code in a way that is backward compatible and easy to expand. This patch implements a flexible way to support multiple boards and devices. This patch does not add any new functional support. It just refactors the

Re: [PATCH v4 12/12] intel_mid: Moved board related code to a new file

2013-10-15 Thread H. Peter Anvin
On 10/15/2013 04:42 PM, David Cohen wrote: +#define intel_mid_sfi_dev(i) \ + static const struct devs_id *__intel_mid_sfi_##i##_dev __used \ + __attribute__((__section__(.x86_intel_mid_dev.init))) = i + Any reason to not just call this sfi_device() or something

Re: [PATCH v4 12/12] intel_mid: Moved board related code to a new file

2013-10-15 Thread David Cohen
On 10/15/2013 04:44 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: On 10/15/2013 04:42 PM, David Cohen wrote: +#define intel_mid_sfi_dev(i) \ + static const struct devs_id *__intel_mid_sfi_##i##_dev __used \ + __attribute__((__section__(.x86_intel_mid_dev.init))) = i + Any reason to

Re: [PATCH v4 12/12] intel_mid: Moved board related code to a new file

2013-10-15 Thread H. Peter Anvin
On 10/15/2013 04:53 PM, David Cohen wrote: On 10/15/2013 04:44 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: On 10/15/2013 04:42 PM, David Cohen wrote: +#define intel_mid_sfi_dev(i) \ +static const struct devs_id *__intel_mid_sfi_##i##_dev __used \ +

Re: [PATCH v4 12/12] intel_mid: Moved board related code to a new file

2013-10-15 Thread David Cohen
On 10/15/2013 05:45 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: On 10/15/2013 04:53 PM, David Cohen wrote: On 10/15/2013 04:44 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: On 10/15/2013 04:42 PM, David Cohen wrote: +#define intel_mid_sfi_dev(i) \ +static const struct devs_id *__intel_mid_sfi_##i##_dev __used \ +

[PATCH v4 12/12] intel_mid: Moved board related code to a new file

2013-10-15 Thread David Cohen
As Intel rolling out more SoC's after Moorestown, we need to re-structure the code in a way that is backward compatible and easy to expand. This patch implements a flexible way to support multiple boards and devices. This patch does not add any new functional support. It just refactors the