From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Santosh Shilimkar Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] ARM: OMAP: hwmod: remove runtime cpu_is checking Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:29:19 +0530 Message-ID: <4F9E8CA7.8050700@ti.com> References: <1335557140-10854-1-git-send-email-khilman@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from na3sys009aog130.obsmtp.com ([74.125.149.143]:52563 "EHLO na3sys009aog130.obsmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751388Ab2D3M7Y (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:59:24 -0400 Received: by obbwd20 with SMTP id wd20so2697641obb.32 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 05:59:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1335557140-10854-1-git-send-email-khilman@ti.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Kevin Hilman Cc: Paul Walmsley , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On Saturday 28 April 2012 01:35 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote: > This series attempts to remove all the runtime cpu_is* checking in > omap_hwmod.c in favor of using function pointers initialized at init > time. > > This series was motivated by the addition of support for the AM335x > series which was done by adding several more cpu_is* checks, and > provided the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. > > In addition to the cleanup, this provides a much cleaner way of adding > additional SoC support since it no longer requires adding additional > runtime cpu_is* checks. > > Boot tested on OMAP3530/Overo and OMAP4430/Panda. > I was looking at some of these while trying to OMAP5 support. Indeed the cpu_is_* is becoming increasingly no maintanable and ugly. Thanks for the series. Have reviewed the series & tested it on OMAP4430 SDP. Firstly I tried applying the branch against mainline only to realise that it does depend on Paul's earlier series. So used directly your branch "for_3.5/cleanup/hwmod-cpu-is" to test it out. Only one comment on function names considering OMAP4/5 compatibility. Should omap4_*() defined in this series should be called omap4plus_*() or similar considering they can be directly used on OMAP5 devices too. Otherwise FWIW, Reviewed-tested-by: Santosh Shilimkar Regards santosh