From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Santosh Shilimkar Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] ARM: OMAP4+: PM: Consolidate MPU subsystem PM code for re-use Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 19:07:57 +0530 Message-ID: <515ED3B5.2040502@ti.com> References: <1365166743-5940-1-git-send-email-santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> <1365166743-5940-2-git-send-email-santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> <20130405131935.GM11464@arwen.pp.htv.fi> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130405131935.GM11464@arwen.pp.htv.fi> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: balbi@ti.com Cc: khilman@deeprootsystems.com, tony@atomide.com, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org On Friday 05 April 2013 06:49 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote: > On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 06:29:00PM +0530, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: >> OMAP5 and future OMAP based SOCs has backward compatible MPUSS >> IP block with OMAP4. It's programming model is mostly similar. > > s/It's/Its/ > s/mostly // > > (similar already expands to 'almost the same' :-) > >> @@ -355,6 +389,12 @@ int __init omap4_mpuss_init(void) >> >> save_l2x0_context(); >> >> + if (cpu_is_omap44xx()) { >> + omap_pm_ops.finish_suspend = omap4_finish_suspend; >> + omap_pm_ops.resume = omap4_cpu_resume; >> + omap_pm_ops.scu_prepare = scu_pwrst_prepare; >> + } > > why don't you just rename omap4_* into omap_* and add cpu-based checks > there in order to handle differences between omap4 and omap5? > The whole idea is to handle all these SOC specific stuff in init and not sprinkle the checks in runtime code. > If implementation will be almost the same for both, you might be able to > save on some more duplication, no ? > The implementation is not same and hence. If it was same, I wouldn't have introduced function pointers :) Regards, Santosh