On Mon, 2 Nov 2009, Nishanth Menon wrote: > Alexander Shishkin had written, on 11/02/2009 11:01 AM, the following: > [..] > > > > > Issues with the strategy of restricting to the current 8 bits: > > > > > a) Why extrabits now: > > > > > we have 8 bits now and we would have used all 8 bits with 3630 with > > > > > the > > > > > mentioned patch. What do we do with the next revision of 3430? Do we > > > > > want to > > > > > increase the size once it comes along? OR Do we want to do it right > > > > > now? Why > > > > > wait till we get additional silicons to go figure how to add those > > > > > bits as > > > > > Richard pointed out, when there could be one more in the pipeline? > > > > But this code will have to be revisited for each additional silicon > > > > revision anyway, right? Why reserve now? > > > > > > > Agreed, that is one of the possible approaches we could take (and > > > seems to be the common consensus), we can review the structure at a > > > later point of time. > > > > > > http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/54847/ seems to be the right > > > direction for now at least. > > > > Ok, so let's have it in, perhaps. > Tony, Kevin, upto you guys now.. The product of this good discussion has been merged into Abhijit's first OMAP4 powerdomain patch and is queued for .34. - Paul -- 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
