From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Cousson, Benoit" Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] omap: iommu: code reorganization and cleanup Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 17:28:46 -0400 Message-ID: <4CD5C88E.5050009@ti.com> References: <1289006396-27230-1-git-send-email-omar.ramirez@ti.com> <1289006396-27230-7-git-send-email-omar.ramirez@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from devils.ext.ti.com ([198.47.26.153]:60949 "EHLO devils.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753697Ab0KFV2D (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 Nov 2010 17:28:03 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1289006396-27230-7-git-send-email-omar.ramirez@ti.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: "Ramirez Luna, Omar" Cc: Tony Lindgren , Hiroshi DOYU , Russell King , "Kanigeri, Hari" , Paul Walmsley , Kevin Hilman , "Raja, Govindraj" , "Varadarajan, Charulatha" , "Gupta, Ramesh" , "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" On 11/5/2010 9:19 PM, Ramirez Luna, Omar wrote: > Since omap-iommu is now using hwmod, there are structures and > arrays that can be cleaned up to increase the readability of > the code. This patch should be merged with the previous one as well. I do not see the need to split in 3 patches these changes. It will be much readable and will avoid people, like me, doing comment on a piece of code you will remove 2 patches later. That cleanup must be done when the hwmod is introduced since that code was already useless at that time. I can understand the phased approach when you have huge changes to do, but in that case, that does not worth it. It make the review even more painful. > Signed-off-by: Omar Ramirez Luna > --- > arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-iommu.c | 95 +++++++++++-------------------- > arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/iommu.h | 2 +- > 2 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 63 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-iommu.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-iommu.c > index 0a76bce..135474b 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-iommu.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-iommu.c > @@ -17,53 +17,17 @@ > #include > #include > > -struct iommu_device { > - struct iommu_platform_data pdata; > +static char *omap3_devices[] = { > + "isp", > + "iva2", > + NULL, > }; > -static struct iommu_device *devices; > -static int num_iommu_devices; > - > -#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP3 > -static struct iommu_device omap3_devices[] = { > - { > - .pdata = { > - .name = "isp", > - }, > - }, > -#if defined(CONFIG_MPU_BRIDGE_IOMMU) > - { > - .pdata = { > - .name = "iva2", > - }, > - }, > -#endif > -}; > -#define NR_OMAP3_IOMMU_DEVICES ARRAY_SIZE(omap3_devices) > -#else > -#define omap3_devices NULL > -#define NR_OMAP3_IOMMU_DEVICES 0 > -#endif > - > -#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP4 > -static struct iommu_device omap4_devices[] = { > - { > - .pdata = { > - .name = "ducati", > - }, > - }, > -#if defined(CONFIG_MPU_TESLA_IOMMU) > - { > - .pdata = { > - .name = "tesla", > - }, > - }, > -#endif > + > +static char *omap4_devices[] = { > + "ducati", > + "tesla", > + NULL, Not needed if you iterate over the class. Benoit From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: b-cousson@ti.com (Cousson, Benoit) Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 17:28:46 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 6/6] omap: iommu: code reorganization and cleanup In-Reply-To: <1289006396-27230-7-git-send-email-omar.ramirez@ti.com> References: <1289006396-27230-1-git-send-email-omar.ramirez@ti.com> <1289006396-27230-7-git-send-email-omar.ramirez@ti.com> Message-ID: <4CD5C88E.5050009@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 11/5/2010 9:19 PM, Ramirez Luna, Omar wrote: > Since omap-iommu is now using hwmod, there are structures and > arrays that can be cleaned up to increase the readability of > the code. This patch should be merged with the previous one as well. I do not see the need to split in 3 patches these changes. It will be much readable and will avoid people, like me, doing comment on a piece of code you will remove 2 patches later. That cleanup must be done when the hwmod is introduced since that code was already useless at that time. I can understand the phased approach when you have huge changes to do, but in that case, that does not worth it. It make the review even more painful. > Signed-off-by: Omar Ramirez Luna > --- > arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-iommu.c | 95 +++++++++++-------------------- > arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/iommu.h | 2 +- > 2 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 63 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-iommu.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-iommu.c > index 0a76bce..135474b 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-iommu.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-iommu.c > @@ -17,53 +17,17 @@ > #include > #include > > -struct iommu_device { > - struct iommu_platform_data pdata; > +static char *omap3_devices[] = { > + "isp", > + "iva2", > + NULL, > }; > -static struct iommu_device *devices; > -static int num_iommu_devices; > - > -#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP3 > -static struct iommu_device omap3_devices[] = { > - { > - .pdata = { > - .name = "isp", > - }, > - }, > -#if defined(CONFIG_MPU_BRIDGE_IOMMU) > - { > - .pdata = { > - .name = "iva2", > - }, > - }, > -#endif > -}; > -#define NR_OMAP3_IOMMU_DEVICES ARRAY_SIZE(omap3_devices) > -#else > -#define omap3_devices NULL > -#define NR_OMAP3_IOMMU_DEVICES 0 > -#endif > - > -#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP4 > -static struct iommu_device omap4_devices[] = { > - { > - .pdata = { > - .name = "ducati", > - }, > - }, > -#if defined(CONFIG_MPU_TESLA_IOMMU) > - { > - .pdata = { > - .name = "tesla", > - }, > - }, > -#endif > + > +static char *omap4_devices[] = { > + "ducati", > + "tesla", > + NULL, Not needed if you iterate over the class. Benoit