From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 11:12:41 +0100
Subject: [RFC PATCH v2 0/5] Add generic macros for declaring various
	CPU structs
In-Reply-To: <1308049105-16080-1-git-send-email-dave.martin@linaro.org>
References: <1308049105-16080-1-git-send-email-dave.martin@linaro.org>
Message-ID: <20110616101241.GA4028@e102144-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Hi Dave,

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:58:20AM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> Based on previous discussions, this series provides an alternative
> macro for defining CPU-specific structures compactly.
> 
> I don't get to have so much fun with macros in this version, but
> it's more straightforward and actually allows the declarations to
> be collapsed down further by taking advantage of common naming
> conventions.
> 
> In this RFC, only the arch names, processor_functions and
> cache_functions are turned into macros, to show how this could
> work.  This could be straightforwardly extended to cover tlb_fns,
> but proc_info is more complex and may require a bit more thought.

In general, this looks good to me and I'm happy to rebase my A5/A15 core
patches on top of this series.

>  * For consistency, I've renamed the arch/CPU name string labels.
>    If that is seen as unnecessary churn, it can be undone.

I don't see the win here, so let's leave the names like they are to avoid
unnecessary conflicts with other patches dealing with proc_info structs.

Will