Re: [PATCH 2/6] OMAP4: Pandaboard: Add omap_reserve functionality

[Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>]

* Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> [101218 09:50]:
> On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 09:41:36AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > * Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> [101218 09:36]:
> > > On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 09:20:56AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > > > * Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> [101218 00:26]:
> > > > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 07:05:21PM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > > > > >  	/* Maintainer: David Anders - Texas Instruments Inc */
> > > > > >  	.boot_params	= 0x80000100,
> > > > > >  	.map_io		= omap4_panda_map_io,
> > > > > > +	.reserve	= omap_reserve,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Please put .reserve before .map_io.
> > > > 
> > > > Hmm, that's the way it should be.. But we should also correct the
> > > > earlier changes too?
> > > 
> > > Strangely that's what I've been doing in my init_early patches.  My
> > > comment was aimed to ensure that no new instances are introduced.
> > 
> > OK, do you want to merge this one into your patches too?
> 
> Well, the main purpose of init_early is to provide a hook to allow
> platforms to initialize their sched_clock() implementation before the
> scheduler comes up.
> 
> init_early is already in my misc branch, and should appear in linux-next
> during the next update, if it isn't there already.  The patch for using
> this new hook is still work in progress (SMP issues has overtaken it
> again today.)
> 
> However, the problem I currently have is that the sched_clock() patchset
> depends on the ftrace changes from Rabin (in devel-stable) and the
> init_early stuff is in the misc branch, and I'm trying to avoid merging
> those two branches until the patches for using the new hook have been
> finalized and reviewed.
> 
> Once that's happened there's another pile of work to sort out the
> initialization of sched_clock(), especially as almost every machine
> class is completely different in this regard (due to dependencies with
> things like clk API.)
> 
> I think this is going to be rather hit and miss, so I'm probably going
> to do this relatively slowly - let's do the init_early support and
> moving stuff there for this merge window, and leave resolving the
> sched_clock() initialization issue until the following merge window.
> (The rest of the sched_clock() stuff can go in as-is because it's no
> worse than what we do today.)

OK, sounds good. I'll give those a try next week too.

Will update this patch based on your original comment and keep
it in my series.

Regards,

Tony