[PATCH v3 2/4] ARM: OMAP4+: PM: Consolidate OMAP4 PM code to re-use it for OMAP5

[tony@atomide.com (Tony Lindgren)]

* Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> [130408 03:51]:
> On Saturday 06 April 2013 03:04 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > * Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> [130405 06:01]:
> >> OMAP5 has backward compatible PRCM block and it's programming
> >> model is mostly similar to OMAP4. Same is going to be maintained
> >> for future OMAP4 based SOCs. Hence consolidate the OMAP4 power
> >> management code so that it can be re-used on OMAP5 and later devices.
> >>
> >> While at it, update the kernel-doc for omap4_pm_init().
> >>
> >> Acked-by: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>
> >> ---
> >>  arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile                       |    9 +--
> >>  arch/arm/mach-omap2/{pm44xx.c => pm_omap4plus.c}   |   58 ++++++++++++++++----
> >>  .../mach-omap2/{sleep44xx.S => sleep_omap4plus.S}  |    0
> >>  3 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> >>  rename arch/arm/mach-omap2/{pm44xx.c => pm_omap4plus.c} (83%)
> >>  rename arch/arm/mach-omap2/{sleep44xx.S => sleep_omap4plus.S} (100%)
> > 
> > I suggest you leave out the rename. That just adds churn and has
> > flame potential.
> > 
> OK. I can leave that mow but have to do renames anyways when
> I add OMAP5 support. OMAP54XX support inside pm44xx.c and sleep44x.S
> will be really odd.

Well that should be just fine if the hardware is the same.
 
> Let me know if you have concern on renaming it while OMAP5 support
> gets added ?

If the rename is done, it should have a clear reason to do it in
a separate patch. IMHO it's just fine to have omap4 in some name and
then assume that at least some follow up SoCs also use that code.
In the worst case we may end up renaming things many times:

omap-xyz.c -> omap2-xyz.c -> omap2plus-xyz.c -> omap2-to-4-xyz.c ->
omap2-to-4-and-am35xx-xyz.c etc :)

If we rename something, the description should have a clear reason
for doing it like "To avoid confusing between PM code that does not
have support for bootrom assisted off-idle on SMP omaps with PM code
that's not bootrom assisted, let's rename foo to.."

For the naming, the only safe naming convention is to use something
actually describing the piece of hardware. Maybe some combination
of bootrom-assisted-off-idle + SMP in this case if there's no actual
name for this hwblock?

Regards,

Tony