On 14:22-20110526, Premi, Sanjeev wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: linux-omap-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > [mailto:linux-omap-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Menon, Nishanth > > Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 7:27 AM > > To: linux-omap > > Cc: Nayak, Rajendra > > Subject: [RFC][PATCH 7/9] OMAP4: powerdomain: Update MPU > > powerdomain for 4460 > > > > From: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@xxxxxx> > > > > The 4460 platform has changes in the MPU powerdomain, > > hence model a new powerdomain for it and identify > > is using the CHIP_IS_OMAP446X macro. > > Also move all the common powerdomains to use > > CHIP_IS_44XX so they are reused on OMAP4460. > > > [snip]...[snip] > > > +static struct powerdomain mpu_446x_pwrdm = { > > + .name = "mpu_pwrdm", > > + .prcm_offs = OMAP4430_PRM_MPU_INST, > > + .prcm_partition = OMAP4430_PRM_PARTITION, > > + .omap_chip = OMAP_CHIP_INIT(CHIP_IS_OMAP4460), > > [sp] This change doesn't go with the description above. > Shouldn't this be CHIP_IS_OMAP44XX or CHIP_IS_OMAP446X > to be more future safe? hmm.. similar to Vikram's comment as well. Will switch to using 6X and 3X instead of 60 and 30 if there are no contrary opinions. -- 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
