From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] ARM: OMAP4+: PM: Consolidate MPU subsystem PM
 code for re-use
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 19:09:19 +0530
Message-ID: <515ED407.5000609@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> <20130405133511.GA4143@kahuna>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org>
In-Reply-To: <20130405133511.GA4143@kahuna>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/options/linux-arm-kernel>,
 <mailto:linux-arm-kernel-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/>
List-Post: <mailto:linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linux-arm-kernel-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel>,
 <mailto:linux-arm-kernel-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" <linux-arm-kernel-bounces@lists.infradead.org>
Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org
To: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>
Cc: khilman@deeprootsystems.com, tony@atomide.com, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>
List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org

On Friday 05 April 2013 07:05 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 16:19-20130405, 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?
>>
>> If implementation will be almost the same for both, you might be able to
>> save on some more duplication, no ?
> Jeez NO! finish_suspend is assembly, further, it is the hottest path in
> cpuidle framework - for every WFI we invoke it. we definitely dont want
> to add more overhead beyond what is necessary.
:-)
Our emails crossed. I just said the same thing in other words.

Regards,
Santosh