"Premi, Sanjeev" <premi@xxxxxx> 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 -- 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
