On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 08:04:32PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 01:32:39PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > @@ -469,17 +515,26 @@ static struct platform_device omap_wdt_device = {
> >
> > static void omap_init_wdt(void)
> > {
> > - if (cpu_is_omap16xx())
> > + if (cpu_is_omap16xx()) {
> > + omap_wdt_pdata.fck = "armwdt_ck";
> > wdt_resources[0].start = 0xfffeb000;
> > - else if (cpu_is_omap2420())
> > + } else if (cpu_is_omap2420()) {
> > + omap_wdt_pdata.fck = "mpu_wdt_ick";
> > + omap_wdt_pdata.ick = "mpu_wdt_fck";
>
> What happened to leaving this stuff inside omap_wdt.c as I said
> during the previous review? I really don't want to see such cleanups
> when the real answer is to fix the OMAP clock API implementation. It
> just makes for more unnecessary noise when doing this, and then yet more
> noise when we fix the OMAP clock API.
>
> Please get rid of this and leave the clock naming crap inside omap_wdt.c.
Well, patches 4 and 5 should be ignored. Should I resend or could I rely
on the fact that people won't pick them up ?
--
balbi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
