* R, Sricharan <r.sricharan@xxxxxx> [120509 02:09]:
> Tony,
>
> [snip]
> >> >> -#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP4) && !(defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP2) || \
> >> >> - defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP3))
> >> >> +#if (defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP5) || defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP4)) && \
> >> >> + !(defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP2) || defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP3))
> >> >> +
> >> >> static inline u32 omap2_prm_read_mod_reg(s16 module, u16 idx)
> >> >> {
> >> >> WARN(1, "prm: omap2xxx/omap3xxx specific function and "
> >> >
> >> > Maybe these functions could be just set up as __weak to avoid the
> >> > ifdeffery?
> >> >
> >> sorry to understand,
> >> you mean make this weak and have a strong override for OMAP2 ?
> >
> > Yeah that should do the trick, right?
> Ok, There are multiple functions under that #ifdef.
> Also i see that __weak cannot be used for inline functions.
> So should those functions should be moved to .c file and qualify them
> __weak. There is already a strong override for OMAP2 and 3 which
> should not be a problem.
Yes that's worth experimenting with to set up things in a way where
we don't need to add new ifdefs to add a new SoC.
> [OR]
>
> So after the cleanup patch introducing CONFIG_SOC_OMAP4PLUS
> it can be changed as
> #ifdef (CONFIG_SOC_OMAP4PLUS) && !(defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP2) ||
> defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP3))
>
> So this will avoid patching this for the future socs. ?
Well it seems that we've come to a conclusion that if we introduce
new config options, they should be based on features instead. So
CONFIG_SOC_HAS_OMAPXYZ_BLAH rather than CONFIG_SOC_OMAP4PLUS.
Regards,
Tony
--
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
