From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tony Lindgren Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/14] ARM: OMAP5: Add minimal support for OMAP5430 SOC Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 01:39:24 -0700 Message-ID: <20120816083923.GK11011@atomide.com> References: <1341566515-22665-1-git-send-email-santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> <1341566515-22665-5-git-send-email-santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> <4FFA9B61.8030808@ti.com> <20120709131156.GH1122@atomide.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org ([204.13.248.72]:45944 "EHLO mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752955Ab2HPIj2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Aug 2012 04:39:28 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Paul Walmsley Cc: Vaibhav Hiremath , Santosh Shilimkar , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, R Sricharan * Paul Walmsley [120815 15:27]: > Hi > > On Mon, 9 Jul 2012, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > Below (untested) is what could be done in the short term. > > That's fine with me. Do you want to queue it or do you want me to queue > it? Probably best for you to take it along with other related patches. > > Heh these CK_XXXX defines are now running out of the u16 cpu_mask. > > > > They really should be replaced with SoC specific lists of clocks > > rather than bloating the cpu_mask and repeating it for every clock > > that's compiled in for 800+ times. > > Frankly, an extra 1.6KB -- uncompressed -- is pretty low on my list of > bloat concerns for multi-OMAP kernels. If it were up to me, I'd just > change it to a u32 and be done with the problem for the foreseeable > future. And then we're wasting that 1.6KB.. > > I wonder if we could #define CK_OMAP_DUMMY 0 that's always set > > for non-shared clocks if they only get set in some *_data.c > > file in a unique way? > > > > Paul got any better ideas? > > Aside from using u32? Not really. As we've discussed in the past, at > some point we should convert the clock initialization to using some kind > of per-SoC list. But it doesn't seem worth spending too much time on that > while the common clock framework conversion is higher priority. Right, let's do the ifdef else thing then. Regards, Tony From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tony@atomide.com (Tony Lindgren) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 01:39:24 -0700 Subject: [PATCH v2 04/14] ARM: OMAP5: Add minimal support for OMAP5430 SOC In-Reply-To: References: <1341566515-22665-1-git-send-email-santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> <1341566515-22665-5-git-send-email-santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> <4FFA9B61.8030808@ti.com> <20120709131156.GH1122@atomide.com> Message-ID: <20120816083923.GK11011@atomide.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org * Paul Walmsley [120815 15:27]: > Hi > > On Mon, 9 Jul 2012, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > Below (untested) is what could be done in the short term. > > That's fine with me. Do you want to queue it or do you want me to queue > it? Probably best for you to take it along with other related patches. > > Heh these CK_XXXX defines are now running out of the u16 cpu_mask. > > > > They really should be replaced with SoC specific lists of clocks > > rather than bloating the cpu_mask and repeating it for every clock > > that's compiled in for 800+ times. > > Frankly, an extra 1.6KB -- uncompressed -- is pretty low on my list of > bloat concerns for multi-OMAP kernels. If it were up to me, I'd just > change it to a u32 and be done with the problem for the foreseeable > future. And then we're wasting that 1.6KB.. > > I wonder if we could #define CK_OMAP_DUMMY 0 that's always set > > for non-shared clocks if they only get set in some *_data.c > > file in a unique way? > > > > Paul got any better ideas? > > Aside from using u32? Not really. As we've discussed in the past, at > some point we should convert the clock initialization to using some kind > of per-SoC list. But it doesn't seem worth spending too much time on that > while the common clock framework conversion is higher priority. Right, let's do the ifdef else thing then. Regards, Tony