On Friday 05 April 2013 06:49 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 06:29:00PM +0530, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> OMAP5 and future OMAP based SOCs has backward compatible MPUSS
>> IP block with OMAP4. It's programming model is mostly similar.
>
> s/It's/Its/
> s/mostly //
>
> (similar already expands to 'almost the same' :-)
>
>> @@ -355,6 +389,12 @@ int __init omap4_mpuss_init(void)
>>
>> save_l2x0_context();
>>
>> + if (cpu_is_omap44xx()) {
>> + omap_pm_ops.finish_suspend = omap4_finish_suspend;
>> + omap_pm_ops.resume = omap4_cpu_resume;
>> + omap_pm_ops.scu_prepare = scu_pwrst_prepare;
>> + }
>
> why don't you just rename omap4_* into omap_* and add cpu-based checks
> there in order to handle differences between omap4 and omap5?
>
The whole idea is to handle all these SOC specific stuff in init and
not sprinkle the checks in runtime code.
> If implementation will be almost the same for both, you might be able to
> save on some more duplication, no ?
>
The implementation is not same and hence. If it was same, I wouldn't
have introduced function pointers :)
Regards,
Santosh
--
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
