Tony Lindgren had written, on 07/09/2010 02:04 AM, the following:
* 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.
ack.
--
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
--
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
