* Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> [091208 15:32]: > * Janusz Krzysztofik <jkrzyszt@xxxxxxxxxxxx> [091208 11:45]: > > Tuesday 08 December 2009 17:59:31 Tony Lindgren napisał(a): > > > * Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> [091208 08:39]: > > > > > > > > How about just set the cache size above based on the processor, > > > > then do kzalloc here: > > > > > > > > mcbsp->reg_cache = kzalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL); > > > > > > > > > + if (!mcbsp->reg_cache) > > > > > + return -ENOMEM; > > > > > + > > > > > > > > That way the kzalloc and error checking are in the same place. > > > > > > Actually since we already have mach-omap1/mcbsp.c and mach-omap2/mcbsp.c, > > > it would be best to pass the cache size from omap1_mcbsp_init and > > > omap2_mcbsp_init. That leaves some of the if cpu_is_omapxxxx() else > > > stuff. > > > > Tony, > > Almost ready with it, one more question: what do you think about splitting and > > moving omap_mcbsp_read()/_write() there as well? If you agree, should I > > submit 2 patches, one with this cleanup, the other one actually introducing > > cache support, or is one combined OK? > > Sounds good to me! Oh sorry forgot to reply to your question. If a single patch looks unreadable, then split it into two where the first patch splits omap_mcbsp_read/write. Tony -- 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
