* Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx> [100708 22:31]: > > > > I think this 'lazy reviewability' comes at the cost of very > >abstraction the features framework is intended to provide, not to > >mention the question of correct selection (is this a OMAP4 specific > >feature or is OMAP5 expected to have it ?). and upgradation. > > > > As mentioned before, the surrounding context of the use of > >omap_has_feature() will provide enough clues about the cpu specific > >nature of a feature, if at all needed. > > Does it really? when a new feature is added, dont we want to know if > it is generic feature or a omap specific feature? where is the flag? Yeah I don't know what we should do with these defines.. Kind of just threw the patch out there. If we already have omap specific omap_has_feature functions, we don't need cpu_is_omapxxxx in most cases. I suggest we only use the generic defines now, then look at it again when we run out of the bits to define. Regards, 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
