Jagadeesh, We are also working on similar lines and I have already sent a RFC to discuss it further in the community. Please have a look at the below link and provide your comments:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=124083364321017&w=2 Regards, Anuj Aggarwal > -----Original Message----- > From: linux-omap-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-omap- > ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Pakaravoor, Jagadeesh > Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 2:42 PM > To: felipe.ba...@nokia.com > Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org > Subject: RE: [RFC] [Patch 0/2] Proposal for changes to TWL4030/TWL5030 > framework for integrating the new TWL6030 chip > > > - if (twl_has_keypad() && pdata->keypad) { > > + if (twl_has_keypad() && pdata->keypad && > > + !(features & TLW6030)) { > > child = add_child(2, "twl4030_keypad", > > pdata->keypad, sizeof(*pdata->keypad), > > true, pdata->irq_base + 1, 0); > > > > You'd probably only need to make changes to register defines but almost > > everything else could remain as is. There shouldn't be any need for > > creating separate files. > > > Patch 0, of the series explains the differences between TWL4030 and TWL6030. > > Going the aforesaid way, we will need checks like this in almost every other > line of code. And I believe having a separate file would be more modular, and > hence readable (a twl.c which will bind with twl4030-core.c and twl4030-irq.c > if > TWL4030 is selected, and twl6030-core.c and twl6030-irq.c if TWL6030 is > selected). > > I am not sure how we can incorporate all the hardware changes by just > changing register addresses. > > -- > Jagadeesh > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
