"Menon, Nishanth" <nm@xxxxxx> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 16:15, Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxx> wrote:
>> Maximilian Schwerin <mvs@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> From: Steve Sakoman <steve@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Don't try to add IVA OPPs for OMAP3 versions not containing an IVA
>>> subsystem, as this would make omap_init_opp_table fail.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Steve Sakoman <steve@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Maximilian Schwerin <mvs@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Minor: patch subjects for arch/arm/* core code need to have the ARM:
>> prefix also.
>>
>> Also, please run scripts/checkpatch.pl on your patch and fix the
>> warnings.
>>
>>> ---
>>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/opp.c | 4 ++++
>>> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/opp.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/opp.c
>>> index 9262a6b..414f2ec 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/opp.c
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/opp.c
>>> @@ -62,6 +62,10 @@ int __init omap_init_opp_table(struct omap_opp_def *opp_def,
>>> __func__, i);
>>> return -EINVAL;
>>> }
>>> +
>>> + if ((strcmp(opp_def->hwmod_name,"iva") == 0) && !omap3_has_iva())
>>> + continue;
>>> +
>>> oh = omap_hwmod_lookup(opp_def->hwmod_name);
>>> if (!oh || !oh->od) {
>>> pr_warn("%s: no hwmod or odev for %s, [%d] "
>>
>> Wouldn't the one-liner below do the same thing?
>>
>> Actually, your patch makes it less noisy at boot time, avoiding the
>> pr_warn(), so is probably better.
>
> The only issue i have with current patch is that it focusses to solve
> a specific device IVA.
> we could have similar variances if we had SGX/AESS device etc
> registered in the common
> table. a generic solution might be preferable - could we reduce the
> severity of pr_warn to pr_debug and do a continue instead?
I agree, that would be a better generic solution.
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
