Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx> writes: > Kevin Hilman wrote, on 11/22/2010 05:19 PM: >> Nishanth Menon<nm@xxxxxx> writes: >> >>> This patch adds OPP tables for OMAP4. New file has been added to keep >>> the OMAP4 opp tables and the registration of these tables with the >>> generic opp framework by OMAP SoC OPP interface. >> >> [...] >> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/opp.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/opp.c >>> index 66e12be..48a553f 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/opp.c >>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/opp.c >>> @@ -131,4 +131,5 @@ static int __init omap_init_opp_table(struct omap_opp_def *opp_def, >>> >>> /* omap3 opps */ >>> #include "opp3xxx_data.c" >>> - >>> +/* omap4 opps */ >>> +#include "opp4xxx_data.c" >> >> I'm not sure I like the including of C files. Any reason you prefer >> this to just adding them to the Makefile? e.g. opp24xx_dta.c are >> compiled in via Makefile and these two are included. > > I dont buy it. I am seeing us go around in circles for this: > http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=128986880406272&w=2 > a) we dont want others to use specifics implemented in opp.c in other > files (e.g. board files) not sure how this is prevented. > b) we have many similar usage in linux kernel - so this usage is not > first time. > c) opp2xx usage is very different from opp3/4 usage I'm not going to insist on one way or the other, just stating my preference for not including C files from C files without good justification. You've stated your reasons, I guess Tony can decide. 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
