From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tony Lindgren Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/11] omap4: Fix omap_l2_cache_init not to run for other omaps Date: Sat, 1 May 2010 10:46:56 -0700 Message-ID: <20100501174656.GN29604@atomide.com> References: <20100430202603.25812.41834.stgit@baageli.muru.com> <20100430203359.25812.56284.stgit@baageli.muru.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org ([204.13.248.72]:59493 "EHLO mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751700Ab0EARrF (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 May 2010 13:47:05 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: "Shilimkar, Santosh" Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" * Shilimkar, Santosh [100430 23:13]: > Tony, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: linux-arm-kernel-bounces@lists.infradead.org [mailto:linux-arm-kernel- > > bounces@lists.infradead.org] On Behalf Of Tony Lindgren > > Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2010 2:04 AM > > To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > > Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org > > Subject: [PATCH 06/11] omap4: Fix omap_l2_cache_init not to run for other omaps > > > > In multi-omap configuration all the initcalls run. To avoid > > bad things from happening with 44xx specific initcalls on > > other omaps, we need to check that the booted system is > > omap4 before running. > > > > Signed-off-by: Tony Lindgren > > --- > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-4430sdp.c | 3 +++ > > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-4430sdp.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-4430sdp.c > > index b88f28c..e603b00 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-4430sdp.c > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-4430sdp.c > > @@ -55,6 +55,9 @@ static int __init omap_l2_cache_init(void) > > extern void omap_smc1(u32 fn, u32 arg); > > void __iomem *l2cache_base; > > > > + if (!cpu_is_omap44xx()) > > + return -ENODEV; > > + > > This check is already present just 3 lines below. Oops. Thanks for pointing that out, dropping this patch. Tony