Re: [PATCH 2/2] OMAP3: PM: Configure CPUidle latencies/thresholds from board files

[Kevin Hilman <khilman@deeprootsystems.com>]

"Premi, Sanjeev" <premi@ti.com> writes:

>>  extern void omap1_map_common_io(void);
>>  extern void omap1_init_common_hw(void);
>> @@ -234,7 +235,8 @@ extern void omap2_init_common_hw(struct 
>> omap_sdrc_params *sp,
>>  				 struct omap_opp *mpu_opps,
>>  				 struct omap_opp *dsp_opps,
>>  				 struct omap_opp *l3_opps,
>> -				 struct prm_setup_vc *setup_times);
>> +				 struct prm_setup_vc *setup_times,
>> +				 struct cpuidle_params *idle_params);
>
> Rajendra, all,
>
> Aren't we 'overloading' omap2_init_common_hw() each time we add another
> argument to it?
>
> Shouldn't we defined define a function specific for PM initialization?
> Some of the initialization actually doesn't even touch the HW.
>

Completely agree.

We are absolutely overloading init_common_hw() and this is on the list
of things I'd like to see changed before those change go upstream.  I
just haven't got to that yet.

I would happily welcome any proposals or cleanups to this.

My current feeling is that I think these board-specific settings
should just be using platform_driver/platform_device model and then
board-specifics could be passed via platform_data.  If not settings
are given, conservative defaults can be used.  But honestly, I haven't
given it much more thought, other than I *really* don't like the
current overloading of that function.

Kevin