Hi,
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Felipe Balbi <ba...@ti.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 04:52:13PM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> Board code should not touch omap_device internals. To get the MPU/IVA
>> devices,
>> use existing APIs: omap2_get_mpu_device(), omap2_get_iva_device().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kevin Hilman <khil...@ti.com>
>> ---
>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-omap3beagle.c | 23 ++++++++++-------------
>> 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-omap3beagle.c
>> b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-omap3beagle.c
>> index 32f5f89..3ae16b4 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-omap3beagle.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-omap3beagle.c
>> @@ -491,23 +491,22 @@ static void __init beagle_opp_init(void)
>>
>> /* Custom OPP enabled for all xM versions */
>> if (cpu_is_omap3630()) {
>> - struct omap_hwmod *mh = omap_hwmod_lookup("mpu");
>> - struct omap_hwmod *dh = omap_hwmod_lookup("iva");
>> - struct device *dev;
>> + struct device *mpu_dev, *iva_dev;
>>
>> - if (!mh || !dh) {
>> + mpu_dev = omap2_get_mpuss_device();
>> + iva_dev = omap2_get_iva_device();
>
> out of curiosity again, nothing to do with this patch.
>
> Maybe it would be nicer to have an api such as:
>
> omap2_get_device(name);
>
> there are already four devices to be gotten, if that number grows any
> bigger, so will the number of helper functions.
I agree with this.
The API is also helpful for the PM QoS devices constraints API, which
requires the pointers to devices structs. At the present time only a
few devices can be used and it would be good to have a generic
implementation.
Regards,
Jean
>
> --
> balbi
>
--
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
