Hello, On 8/27/11, Pavel Machek <pa...@ucw.cz> wrote: > On Fri 2011-08-19 10:19:33, Eric Miao wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov >> <dbarysh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov >> > <dbarysh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The pxa2xx_sharpsl driver part is also used on collie, which (as >> >> a StrongARM board) has different expectations for PCMCIA drivers. >> >> So, on collie place sharpsl_pcmcia_ops in .data section rather than >> >> in __initdata. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbarysh...@gmail.com> >> >> Cc: sta...@kernel.org >> > >> > Any comments on this patch? >> > >> >> diff --git a/drivers/pcmcia/pxa2xx_sharpsl.c >> >> b/drivers/pcmcia/pxa2xx_sharpsl.c >> >> index 69ae2fd..f2405dc 100644 >> >> --- a/drivers/pcmcia/pxa2xx_sharpsl.c >> >> +++ b/drivers/pcmcia/pxa2xx_sharpsl.c >> >> @@ -219,7 +219,11 @@ static void sharpsl_pcmcia_socket_suspend(struct >> >> soc_pcmcia_socket *skt) >> >> sharpsl_pcmcia_init_reset(skt); >> >> } >> >> >> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_SA1100_COLLIE >> >> +static struct pcmcia_low_level sharpsl_pcmcia_ops = { >> >> +#else >> >> static struct pcmcia_low_level sharpsl_pcmcia_ops __initdata = { >> >> +#endif >> >> Looks OK, and maybe we can put it even simpler by just removing >> __initdata. > > I'd say so; ifdef to have initdata there is just too ugly. But I > don't think it is stable material...
Maybe... And memory lost on PXA will be minimal. It's stable material in the sense that lack of this patch causes kernel panics. -- With best wishes Dmitry _______________________________________________ Linux PCMCIA reimplementation list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pcmcia