Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Mike, Kevin, > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Mike Turquette <mturquette@xxxxxx> wrote: >> From: Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx> >> >> We have multiple interrupt status hidden in the PRM interrupt status >> reg. Make this handling generic to allow us to pull out LDO status such >> as those for ABB from it using the same data structure and indexing. We >> hence rename accordingly. > I am not sure that the rename is needed. > > Kevin, Nishant, what is your opinion? On second thought, I don't like the rename. The goal of the VP stuff in prmXXXX.c is to provide high-level functions for VP code where the register access stuff is contained in the PRM layer (since all registers for VP are in the PRM.) While it's currently only used for VP-related IRQs, this might be extended for other VP register accesses, if there are register differences between SoC revisions. So, in the end, I agree w/Jean. I don't think the rename is right. I will however pick up the sparse warning fix, and fold it into the original patch in my part A series where the problem was introduced: OMAP2+: add PRM VP functions for checking/clearing VP TX done status Thanks, 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
