On Wed, 2010-12-15 at 10:07 -0800, Steve Muckle wrote: > On 12/15/10 09:55, Daniel Walker wrote: > > The board file is very similar, plus the ifdefs. The code differences > > are the io and irq's .. The naming issue and the duplication can be > > 8x60 and 8960 are expected to diverge over time. It is not worth it to > try and make them common in this early stage where they are the same > simply because a very small amount of 8960 (and 8660 for that matter) > has been sent upstream. My scheme should deal with that .. > > simplified just by combining 8960 and 8660 .. If you create two new > > Kconfig options, > > > > config MACH_MSM8660 > > bool > > config MACH_MSM8960 > > bool > > We currently use ARCH_MSM* for SoCs, and MACH_* for boards based on > those SoCs. For this reason I think this scheme will be confusing and > lead to machine_is_() calls everywhere. You just need to look at this a different way. It's actually not much different than what we currently have, it just saves us the duplication and eliminates the naming problem .. The current version shouldn't need machine_is_() calls so then this new way shouldn't either. You just use the ifdef's .. > I suggest we rename 8x60 to 8660 (SteveMo's idea actually) if the > current naming is largely considered unacceptable. I wouldn't say it's unacceptable, it's just a open question if there's a better way. Daniel -- Sent by a consultant of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
