Re: [PATCH 5/5] omap: Allow testing for omap type with omap_has_feature

[Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>]

Tony Lindgren had written, on 07/09/2010 02:04 AM, the following:
> * Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com> [100708 22:31]:
>>>    I think this 'lazy reviewability'  comes at the cost of very
>>> abstraction  the features framework is intended to provide, not to
>>> mention the question of correct selection (is this a OMAP4 specific
>>> feature or is OMAP5 expected to have it ?). and upgradation.
>>>
>>>    As mentioned before, the surrounding context of the use of
>>> omap_has_feature() will provide enough clues about the cpu specific
>>> nature of a feature, if at all needed.
>> Does it really? when a new feature is added, dont we want to know if
>> it is generic feature or a omap specific feature? where is the flag?
> 
> Yeah I don't know what we should do with these defines.. Kind of just
> threw the patch out there.
> 
> If we already have omap specific omap_has_feature functions, we don't
> need cpu_is_omapxxxx in most cases.
> 
> I suggest we only use the generic defines now, then look at it again
> when we run out of the bits to define.
ack.

-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon