> -----Original Message----- > From: Tony Lindgren [mailto:tony@xxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 12:44 PM > To: Madhusudhan Chikkature > Cc: linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH]Omap3630: Add hsmmc related checks > > * Madhusudhan Chikkature <madhu.cr@xxxxxx> [091022 10:38]: > > From 661b13474a7af62c54f7df7a33a818c5e782cc59 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: Madhu <madhu.cr@xxxxxx> > > Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:16:31 -0400 > > Subject: [PATCH] Omap3630: Add HSMMC related checks. > > > > Add omap3630 conditional checks to devices.c to allow HSMMC3 addition > and > > mux configuration for HSMMC1/2. > > > > Signed-off-by: Madhusudhan Chikkature <madhu.cr@xxxxxx> > > --- > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c | 5 +++-- > > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c b/arch/arm/mach- > omap2/devices.c > > index 7d4513b..1fdfc7f 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c > > @@ -575,7 +575,7 @@ static inline void omap2_mmc_mux(struct > > omap_mmc_platform_data *mmc_controller, > > } > > } > > > > - if (cpu_is_omap3430()) { > > + if (cpu_is_omap3430() || cpu_is_omap3630()) { > > if (controller_nr == 0) { > > omap_cfg_reg(N28_3430_MMC1_CLK); > > omap_cfg_reg(M27_3430_MMC1_CMD); > > How about using cpu_is_omap34xx() here instead? It's more future proof. > > Regards, > > Tony > Yes. That makes sense. I will submit V2. Regards, Madhu > > @@ -642,7 +642,8 @@ void __init omap2_init_mmc(struct > omap_mmc_platform_data > > **mmc_data, > > irq = INT_24XX_MMC2_IRQ; > > break; > > case 2: > > - if (!cpu_is_omap44xx() && !cpu_is_omap34xx()) > > + if (!cpu_is_omap44xx() && !cpu_is_omap34xx() > > + && !cpu_is_omap3630()) > > return; > > base = OMAP3_MMC3_BASE; > > irq = INT_34XX_MMC3_IRQ; > > -- > > 1.6.0.4 > > > > > > -- 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
