RE: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP: Add minimal OMAP2430 support

Woodruff, Richard
2006-06-11T13:22:37Z

> >
> > But all in all, this is mostly a readability issue, and therefore
> > subject to personal preferences. Mine is read_reg/write_reg. =)
>
> I do agree here. Actually, I don't really mind if one form is used over
> another. Easier sharing likely happens though yours, and consistency is
> better. In general you do need to be a bit careful in that only focusing
> on an overall sharing strategy can limit you to the least common
> denominator.

Actually, with respect to the PRCM I'd rather it stuck to what it current uses.

Along with my other biases I rationalized it this way... I like having a private driver incompatible method to access the PRCM. It forces drivers to use API access functions and not directly access its registers. The PRCM has more and more things to manage and having some xyz driver mess up its state behind my back will break everything.

For example I just sorted out why I was having some trouble getting to core retention on a particular 2430 configuration. Some external entity had wrongly set and cleared a clock related bit. This had the side effect of gating my ability to hit retention. There were no status bits which warned me of this and it just didn't work. The setting was in error and activated some half implemented logic in the chip...

There was a long time where I couldn't pull a reference open source port for OMAP and have its low level power work. That is both a code and hardware issue. It becomes very difficult to support pieces like this out side of production release streams as they stray. I tend to favor functionally over beauty though I certainly can appreciate it when both converge.

Regards,
Richard W.