[PATCH 3/4] ARM: OMAP: Move omap_reserve() locally to mach-omap1/2

[santosh.shilimkar@ti.com (Shilimkar, Santosh)]

On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 1:09 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 07:10:08PM +0530, Lokesh Vutla wrote:
> > omap_reserve() is a stub for omap1. So creating a
> > stub locally in mach-omap1. And moving the definition
> > to mach-omap2.
> > This helps in moving plat/omap_secure.h local to
> > mach-omap2
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla@ti.com>
> > Acked-by : Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm/mach-omap1/common.h             |    3 +++
> >  arch/arm/mach-omap2/common.c             |   20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> >  arch/arm/mach-omap2/common.h             |    1 +
> >  arch/arm/plat-omap/common.c              |   17 -----------------
> >  arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/common.h |    1 -
> >  5 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap1/common.h b/arch/arm/mach-omap1/common.h
> > index c2552b2..f7b01f1 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap1/common.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap1/common.h
> > @@ -90,4 +90,7 @@ extern int ocpi_enable(void);
> >  static inline int ocpi_enable(void) { return 0; }
> >  #endif
> >
> > +static inline void omap_reserve(void)
> > +{ }
>
> This is the wrong approach.  If OMAP1 doesn't need to do any reservation,
> then OMAP1 platforms should not be calling omap_reserve() and OMAP1 should
> not have this defined.
>
> Just because OMAP2 does something one way does not mean OMAP1 needs to
> copy it in every detail.

This patch just updated the code as is. I mean the empty  reserve
callback already
exist before this patch.

But I do agree with you. I think we can drop the reserve callback completly from
OMAP1 board files and then its easier to just make the omap_reserve() local to
OMAP2+ machines.

Tony,
Are you ok in dropping OMAP1 reserve callback from all OMAP1 machines ?

Regards
Santosh