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

[Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>]

* R, Sricharan <r.sricharan@ti.com> [120509 02:09]:
> Tony,
> 
> [snip]
> >> >> -#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 ?
> >
> > Yeah that should do the trick, right?
>  Ok, There are multiple functions under that #ifdef.
>  Also i see that __weak cannot be used for inline functions.
> So should those functions should be moved to .c file and qualify them
>  __weak. There is already a strong override for OMAP2 and 3 which
> should not be a problem.

Yes that's worth experimenting with to set up things in a way where
we don't need to add new ifdefs to add a new SoC.
 
> [OR]
> 
>  So after the cleanup patch introducing CONFIG_SOC_OMAP4PLUS
>  it can be changed as
>  #ifdef (CONFIG_SOC_OMAP4PLUS) && !(defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP2) ||
> defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP3))
> 
> So this will avoid patching this for the future socs. ?

Well it seems that we've come to a conclusion that if we introduce
new config options, they should be based on features instead. So
CONFIG_SOC_HAS_OMAPXYZ_BLAH rather than CONFIG_SOC_OMAP4PLUS.

Regards,

Tony
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html