Re: [PATCH 1/3] ARM: imx: Add common imx cpuidle init functionality.

[Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 08:27:39AM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 01:18:21PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 11:44:39PM -0500, Rob Lee wrote:
> > > >> I don't think we need a cpu_is_imx6q(), but having some i.MX6 specific
> > > >> hook at device_initcall time can't be too wrong. Shawn?
> > > >>
> > > > Yep, it works for me.
> > > >
> > > Sascha, Shawn, thanks for the response.
> > > 
> > > Since device_initcall isn't platform specific, it seems I would still
> > > need a cpu_is_imx6q() function or similiar functionality from a device
> > > tree call.  Or do you have something else in mind that I'm not seeing?
> > > 
> > I guess Sascha is asking for something like the following.
> > 
> > static int __init imx_device_init(void)
> > {
> > 	imx5_device_init();
> > 	imx6_device_init();
> > }
> > device_initcall(imx_device_init)
> > 
> > static int __init imx6_device_init(void)
> > {
> > 	/*
> > 	 * do whatever needs to get done in device_initcall time
> > 	 */
> > }
> 
> The problem is more how we can detect that we are actually running a
> i.MX6 SoC. We could directly ask the devicetree in an initcall or we
> could introduce a cpu_is_mx6() just like we have a macro for all other
> i.MX SoCs.
> 
Oops, my reply was a brain-dead one.  Hmm, then it seems that we have
to introduce cpu_is_mx6() which I tried hard to avoid.  I do not have
a preference between defining a macro and asking device tree.

-- 
Regards,
Shawn

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel