On 7/24/2010 5:35 PM, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote:
From: Cousson, Benoit
Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2010 8:35 PM
Hi Santosh,
On 7/20/2010 4:12 PM, Kanigeri, Hari wrote:
Santosh,
Hari Kanigeri (1):
omap:hwspinlocks-ensure the order of registration
Simon Que (4):
omap:hwmod-hwspinlock-enable
omap:hwspinlock-define HWSPINLOCK base address
I think you should fold patch 1/5 , 2/5 into patch 3/5.
At least patch 2/5 o.w git-bisect will break
Can you please explain why this would break ?
Yep, I'm confused as well...
In fact 3& 4 should be merged. In patch 3 we introduce 2 news files
that will not be compiled until the next patch. We'd better modify the
makefile in the same patch. For the build point of view, the patch 3
will be a noop.
I see your point now. So bisect should be ok but I agree with Benoit suggestion.
Additionally, the base address patch can be avoided because
this information can be retrieved from platform data.
res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
"res->start" is base address
I've just checked, and this now done like that in this latest patch series.
The base address should just be used for the hwmod definition. For the
moment I'm still using the hex value to populate the hwmod struct, but
in the near future I will use the defines defined in omap44xx.h.
Regards,
Benoit
--
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
