RE: [PATCH v2 1/3] TI81XX: Prepare for addition of TI814X support

Pedanekar, Hemant
2011-09-23T00:56:16Z

Tony Lindgren wrote on Thursday, September 22, 2011 11:51 PM:

> * Pedanekar, Hemant <hemantp@ti.com> [110921 17:00]:
>> Tony Lindgren wrote on Thursday, September 22, 2011 2:11 AM:
>>
>>> * Hemant Pedanekar <hemantp@ti.com> [110921 10:05]:
>>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-ti8168evm.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-ti8168evm.c
>>>> @@ -37,16 +37,16 @@ static void __init ti8168_evm_init(void)
>>>>
>>>> static void __init ti8168_evm_map_io(void)
>>>> {
>>>> - omap2_set_globals_ti816x();
>>>> - omapti816x_map_common_io();
>>>> + omap2_set_globals_ti81xx();
>>>> + omapti81xx_map_common_io();
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> MACHINE_START(TI8168EVM, "ti8168evm")
>>>> /* Maintainer: Texas Instruments */
>>>> .atag_offset = 0x100,
>>>> .map_io = ti8168_evm_map_io,
>>>> - .init_early = ti816x_init_early,
>>>> - .init_irq = ti816x_init_irq,
>>>> + .init_early = ti81xx_init_early,
>>>> + .init_irq = ti81xx_init_irq,
>>>> .timer = &omap3_timer,
>>>> .init_machine = ti8168_evm_init,
>>>> MACHINE_END
>>>
>>> Looks like you still need a minor rebase on the current cleanup
>>> branch as the ti8668_evm_map_io is no longer needed. The cleanup
>>> branch already has Paul's CHIP_IS removal, so that should be trivial.
>>>
>>
>> Tony,
>> Can you please clarify? Do we not need ti8168_evm_map_io() for global data
>> initianlization and io init? Or, as you mentioned in comment on 3/3 of the
>> series, do you mean to rename this with ti81xx and move to common.c?
>
> Yes just have a generic one in common.c should be enough. Sorry I thought
> that was already done, but looks like it was only done for omap3_map_io.
>
>>> Ideally the rename patch would be separate without any functional
>>> changes, maybe you can move the changes and additions to the next patch?
>>>
>>> Tony
>>
>> If the above understanding is correct, then I will just have to rename+move
>> ti8168_evm_map_io() so the change can still be in this patch, right? Or are
>> You referring to any other part which should not be in this patch?
>
> Yes it's OK to keep it in this patch.
>
> Tony

Thanks. I will send updated version.

Hemant