Nishanth Menon wrote: > From: linux-omap-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-omap- > > owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ranjith Lohithakshan > > Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 2:39 AM > [...] > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/clock34xx.c b/arch/arm/mach- > > omap2/clock34xx.c > > index c258f87..9ac5c0e 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/clock34xx.c > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/clock34xx.c > > @@ -93,140 +93,143 @@ struct omap_clk { > > #define CK_343X (1 << 0) > > #define CK_3430ES1 (1 << 1) > > #define CK_3430ES2 (1 << 2) > > +#define CK_3517 (1 << 3) > > +#define CK_3505 (1 << 4) > > +#define CK_35XX (CK_3517 | CK_3505) > > > > static struct omap_clk omap34xx_clks[] = { > > - CLK(NULL, "omap_32k_fck", &omap_32k_fck, CK_343X), > > - CLK(NULL, "virt_12m_ck", &virt_12m_ck, CK_343X), > > - CLK(NULL, "virt_13m_ck", &virt_13m_ck, CK_343X), > > - CLK(NULL, "virt_16_8m_ck", &virt_16_8m_ck, CK_3430ES2), Just something that I thought of when I saw this line. Do we still support OMAP3430 ES1.0 silicon? I don't know if any of these boards exist in the wild and if they still work with current code. If we don't mind dropping support for these boards, then maybe we could remove the *3430ES2* flags and cut down on some code? Just a thought. - Anand -- 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
