On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 01:07:32, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Hiremath, Vaibhav <hvaibhav@xxxxxx> [120503 09:45]: > > > > What about cpu_is_omap34xx() true for am33xx? Should we follow it? > > Well are there components that could be used as is with that? > If not, then it probably does not make sense. > I am also in favor of not following cpu_is_omap34xx() for am33xx, but what about ARCH_OMAP? I don't see that you are in agreement in creating ARCH_OMAPAM33XX. Does it make sense to say that, for am33xx, cpu_is_omap34xx() is false, but still it is under ARCH_OMAP3? > BTW, you should post your patches on top of the clean-up patches > Santosh posted as that already leaves out some cpu_is_omapxxxx > checks. That's the "ARM: OMAP2+: Misc cleanup" thread. > Ok. I will do that. Thanks, Vaibhav -- 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
