From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Santosh Shilimkar Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/13] ARM: OMAP5: Add the WakeupGen IP updates. Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 17:22:28 +0530 Message-ID: <4FABABFC.4090903@ti.com> References: <1336029982-31898-1-git-send-email-r.sricharan@ti.com> <1336029982-31898-9-git-send-email-r.sricharan@ti.com> <4FABA84A.9000507@ti.com> <4FABAB05.4010906@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from na3sys009aog102.obsmtp.com ([74.125.149.69]:47179 "EHLO na3sys009aog102.obsmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757736Ab2EJLwg (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 May 2012 07:52:36 -0400 Received: by obbtb18 with SMTP id tb18so2334671obb.33 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 04:52:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4FABAB05.4010906@ti.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Roger Quadros Cc: R Sricharan , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, tony@atomide.com, b-cousson@ti.com On Thursday 10 May 2012 05:18 PM, Roger Quadros wrote: > On 05/10/2012 02:42 PM, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote: >> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Roger Quadros wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 05/03/2012 10:26 AM, R Sricharan wrote: >>>> From: Santosh Shilimkar >>>> >>>> OMAP4 and OMAP5 share same WakeupGen IP with below few udpates on OMAP5. >>>> - Additional 32 interrupt support is added w.r.t OMAP4 design. >>>> - The AUX CORE boot registers are now made accessible from non-secure SW. >>>> - SAR offset are changed and PTMSYNC* registers are removed from SAR. >>>> >>>> Patch updates the WakeupGen code accordingly. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Santosh Shilimkar >>>> Signed-off-by: R Sricharan >>>> --- >>>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/include/mach/omap-wakeupgen.h | 6 + >>>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-hotplug.c | 24 ++++- >>>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-smp.c | 19 +++- >>>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-wakeupgen.c | 110 +++++++++++++++----- >>>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap4-sar-layout.h | 12 ++- >>>> 5 files changed, 135 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/include/mach/omap-wakeupgen.h b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/include/mach/omap-wakeupgen.h >>>> index 548de90..4d700bc 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/include/mach/omap-wakeupgen.h >>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/include/mach/omap-wakeupgen.h >>>> @@ -11,15 +11,20 @@ >>>> #ifndef OMAP_ARCH_WAKEUPGEN_H >>>> #define OMAP_ARCH_WAKEUPGEN_H >>>> >>>> +/* OMAP4 and OMAP5 has same base address */ >>>> +#define OMAP_WKUPGEN_BASE 0x48281000 >>> >>> unnecessary change, why don't you just use OMAP44XX_WKUPGEN_BASE or >>> define this in the same header as OMAP44XX_WKUPGEN_BASE? >>> >> Just to avoid confusion about OMAP44XX and OMAP54XX. It's cleaner to >> remove the OMAP44XX reference if the base is generic and not depend >> on OMAP4/5. >> >> It's not un-necessary change as such. >> > > OK, is OMAP_WKUPGEN_BASE applicable for OMAPs prior to OMAP4? If not the > naming scheme does not look appropriate. > It's IP exist on OMAP4/5 and future OMAPs, no name is fine. Btw, if you go on that route you will too many examples of non appropriate names. Regards Santosh