Thread (29 messages) flat view 29 messages, 11 authors, 2013-02-28
STALE4956d REVIEWED: 1 (0M)

Revision v1 of 10 in this series; 1 review trailer.

Revisions (10)
  1. v1 [diff vs current]
  2. v1 [diff vs current]
  3. v1 [diff vs current]
  4. v1 [diff vs current]
  5. v1 current
  6. v1 [diff vs current]
  7. v1 [diff vs current]
  8. v1 [diff vs current]
  9. v1 [diff vs current]
  10. v1 [diff vs current]

[PATCH 4/9] ARM: pmu: remove arm_pmu_type enumeration

From: Jiandong Zheng <hidden>
Date: 2012-08-14 16:53:54

On 8/14/2012 1:43 AM, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote:
Hi Jiandong,

On 13/08/12 22:57, Jiandong Zheng wrote:
quoted
On 8/10/2012 10:36 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
quoted
From: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <redacted>
   static struct platform_device pmu_device = {
       .name        = "arm-pmu",
-    .id        = ARM_PMU_DEVICE_CPU,
+    .id        = -1,
       .resource    = &pmu_resource,
       .num_resources    = 1,
   };
Isn't it clearer to define a meaningful name for "-1", esp. if "-1" is
being checked somewhere else?
No platform_device->id is not being referred anywhere. 
ARM_PMU_DEVICE_CPU was initially assigned to id to identify different 
PMU types through platform_device->id variable but was never used.

Also for all new platforms that might support multiple PMUs, we can 
use device tree to identify them.
Seems it is just a field not in use. Even though I still prefer 
something like "ARM_PMU_DEFAULT_ID" to "-1", I am OK with "-1" as well.

Acked-by: Jiandong Zheng <redacted>

Thanks,
JD
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help