"Varadarajan, Charulatha" <charu@xxxxxx> writes: [...] >> >> >> >>> >> >>> What does 'method' mean in that context? Maybe the name should be revisited? >> >> >> >> Agree. 'method' is used throughout OMAP GPIO code. As mentioned above, this >> field would be removed >> >> once the whole GPIO code is cleaned up. This patch series doesn't bother to >> clean up GPIO code as the >> >> changes would be huge and intended only for HWMOD FW adaptation. Cleaning up >> GPIO code would come as >> >> a separate series and we can address this then. >> >> >> > Sorry if my comment is not aligned but I thought we are addressing the >> > gpio clean up as well. >> > >> > If we are re-vamping the code so much, is it not the right time to clean up as >> well ?? >> >> I agree with Santosh, you are already cleaning a bunch of things, and in >> that case you can easily take advantage of HWMOD to remove a good amount >> of useless code. >> >> We'd better do that right now, instead of waiting a next phase that >> might never happen... > > Since hwmod migration would change mainly the init part of the code, > I started working on hwmod migration as part of the first > series. Once we agree upon the final patch set for GPIO hwmod > migration, I can work on top of the hwmod migration patch series to > clean up the GPIO code and send a dependent series. This will help > sending the changes in smaller chunks. > > I would add a TODO section in patch description outlining the > cleanup to be done in the next patch series. At a minimum, a TODO describing the rest of the cleanups would be helpful. > Tony, > Can you add your feedback? > > Please refer http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg26065.html for the old context. > >> >> And BTW, this 'method' is a IP version dependent information and >> not a Soc specific one. You can potentially use the HW revision >> field, if it is available for the GPIO. > > I agree that it is not SoC specific. But I still feel that it is > better not to have 'method' as part of dev_attr, considering that, > after clean-up, this information will no longer be needed. Considering just this 'method' issue, and not the entire cleanup, I don't like this extra 'user' field past to omap2_init_gpio() used for the method. Can you investigate whether or not this flag is even needed and if we can determine the method based on the REVISION register? 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
