Tuesday 08 December 2009 17:59:31 Tony Lindgren napisaƂ(a):
> * Tony Lindgren <t...@atomide.com> [091208 08:39]:
> >
> > How about just set the cache size above based on the processor,
> > then do kzalloc here:
> >
> > mcbsp->reg_cache = kzalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
> >
> > > + if (!mcbsp->reg_cache)
> > > +         return -ENOMEM;
> > > +
> >
> > That way the kzalloc and error checking are in the same place.
>
> Actually since we already have mach-omap1/mcbsp.c and mach-omap2/mcbsp.c,
> it would be best to pass the cache size from omap1_mcbsp_init and
> omap2_mcbsp_init. That leaves some of the if cpu_is_omapxxxx() else
> stuff.

Tony,
Almost ready with it, one more question: what do you think about splitting and 
moving omap_mcbsp_read()/_write() there as well? If you agree, should I 
submit 2 patches, one with this cleanup, the other one actually introducing 
cache support, or is one combined OK?

Thanks,
Janusz
--
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

Reply via email to