On Tuesday 27 March 2012, viresh kumar wrote:

On Mar 27, 2012 7:07 PM, "Arnd Bergmann" [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tuesday 27 March 2012, Viresh Kumar wrote:

quoted

On 3/27/2012 4:45 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

quoted

On Tuesday 27 March 2012, Viresh Kumar wrote:
The normal way is to turn around the logic so you don't have to include this test
at all. Just have one soc-specific init_machine and map_io function, that calls
both soc-specific and shared soc functions, e.g.

But with that, i need multiple DT_MACHINE_START(). Isn't it?
Is this advisable?

Having one DT_MACHINE_START per soc is ok if it helps you. Of course if you
have multiple ones that are basically identical, it's simpler to just
combine them.

That's what i have done in V1. And then only i came to
The first problem i mentioned.

Right. I mean you can feel free to do whichever works best for you. If it's easy
to combine the DT_MACHINE_START sections, then do, otherwise don't.

quoted

Obviously that only works when you initialize the clocks from init_early()
instead of from map_io(), but I think that would be the cleanest choice
if you want to have single function with run-time dependencies.

But then why not use machine_init() for doing this too.

That would be even better. I think we should generally try do initialization
as late as possible, ideally from initcalls. The init_early() function should
only be used for code that absolutely has to be run from setup_arch() and
no later, while the map_io() function should ideally only be used to set up
the static mappings and nothing else.

	Arnd