Re: [PATCH 02/13] ARM: OMAP5: Add minimal support for OMAP5430 SOC

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Hi Tony,
[snip]
> OK this seems to be based on Santosh' Makefile cleanup.
>
 yes..

>>
>> -#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP3) || defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP4)
>> +#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP3) || defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP4) || \
>> +                             defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP5)
>>
>
> How about we add CONFIG_SOC_OMAP3PLUS in the clean-up series?
> Then this becomes just:
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_SOC_OMAP3PLUS
>
 Ok, thanks for the example later. I will do a cleanup patch and
rebase this one.


>> -# ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP4
>> +#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP4) || defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP5)
>>  extern int omap4_cminst_wait_module_idle(u8 part, u16 inst, s16 cdoffs,
>>                                        u16 clkctrl_offs);
>
> And this would be:
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_SOC_OMAP4PLUS
>
 ok..

>
> Also, please change the whole series to use CONFIG_SOC_OMAP5 instead
> of CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP5. CONFIG_ARCH_OMAPXXXX stuff will go away except
> for CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP2PLUS. Sorry forgot to mention that earlier.
>
 ok. sure. will change this.


>> -#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP4) && !(defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP2) ||    \
>> -                                     defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP3))
>> +#if (defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP5) || defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP4)) && \
>> +             !(defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP2) || defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP3))
>> +
>>  static inline u32 omap2_prm_read_mod_reg(s16 module, u16 idx)
>>  {
>>       WARN(1, "prm: omap2xxx/omap3xxx specific function and "
>
> Maybe these functions could be just set up as __weak to avoid the
> ifdeffery?
>
 sorry to understand,
 you mean make this weak and have a strong override for OMAP2 ?

>>  #define CK_443X              (1 << 11)
>>  #define CK_TI816X    (1 << 12)
>>  #define CK_446X              (1 << 13)
>> +#define CK_54XX              (1 << 14)
>>  #define CK_1710              (1 << 15)       /* 1710 extra for rate selection */
>>
>>
>
> Are we going to have to patch tons of existing clocks just to add
> CK_54XX? If so, we should init clocks using SoC specific lists instead.
>

>> diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/clock.h b/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/clock.h
>> index d0ef57c..41858f4 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/clock.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/clock.h
>> @@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ struct clkops {
>>  #define RATE_IN_4460         (1 << 7)
>>  #define RATE_IN_AM33XX               (1 << 8)
>>  #define RATE_IN_TI814X               (1 << 9)
>> +#define RATE_IN_54XX         (1 << 10)
>
> This too may have similar issues, but I guess that's really a different
> patch series to sort out..
>
 ok. agree

>> -#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP3) || defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP4)
>> +#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP3) || defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP4) \
>> +             || defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP5)
>>       void __iomem            *autoidle_reg;
>>       void __iomem            *idlest_reg;
>>       u32                     autoidle_mask;
>
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_SOC_OMAP3PLUS could be used here too
>
 ok..

Thanks,
 Sricharan

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



[Linux ARM (vger)]     [Linux ARM MSM]     [Linux Omap]     [Linux Arm]     [Linux Tegra]     [Fedora ARM]     [eCos]     [Linux Fastboot]     [Gcc Help]     [Git]     [DCCP]     [IETF Announce]     [Security]     [PDAs]     [Linux]     [Linux MIPS]     [Yosemite Campsites]     [Photos]

Add to Google Follow linuxarm on Twitter