On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 1:09 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 07:10:08PM +0530, Lokesh Vutla wrote:
> > omap_reserve() is a stub for omap1. So creating a
> > stub locally in mach-omap1. And moving the definition
> > to mach-omap2.
> > This helps in moving plat/omap_secure.h local to
> > mach-omap2
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla@xxxxxx>
> > Acked-by : Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@xxxxxx>
> > ---
> > arch/arm/mach-omap1/common.h | 3 +++
> > arch/arm/mach-omap2/common.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> > arch/arm/mach-omap2/common.h | 1 +
> > arch/arm/plat-omap/common.c | 17 -----------------
> > arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/common.h | 1 -
> > 5 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap1/common.h b/arch/arm/mach-omap1/common.h
> > index c2552b2..f7b01f1 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap1/common.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap1/common.h
> > @@ -90,4 +90,7 @@ extern int ocpi_enable(void);
> > static inline int ocpi_enable(void) { return 0; }
> > #endif
> >
> > +static inline void omap_reserve(void)
> > +{ }
>
> This is the wrong approach. If OMAP1 doesn't need to do any reservation,
> then OMAP1 platforms should not be calling omap_reserve() and OMAP1 should
> not have this defined.
>
> Just because OMAP2 does something one way does not mean OMAP1 needs to
> copy it in every detail.
This patch just updated the code as is. I mean the empty reserve
callback already
exist before this patch.
But I do agree with you. I think we can drop the reserve callback completly from
OMAP1 board files and then its easier to just make the omap_reserve() local to
OMAP2+ machines.
Tony,
Are you ok in dropping OMAP1 reserve callback from all OMAP1 machines ?
Regards
Santosh
--
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
