On 16:19-20130405, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 06:29:00PM +0530, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> > OMAP5 and future OMAP based SOCs has backward compatible MPUSS
> > IP block with OMAP4. It's programming model is mostly similar.
>
> s/It's/Its/
> s/mostly //
>
> (similar already expands to 'almost the same' :-)
>
> > @@ -355,6 +389,12 @@ int __init omap4_mpuss_init(void)
> >
> > save_l2x0_context();
> >
> > + if (cpu_is_omap44xx()) {
> > + omap_pm_ops.finish_suspend = omap4_finish_suspend;
> > + omap_pm_ops.resume = omap4_cpu_resume;
> > + omap_pm_ops.scu_prepare = scu_pwrst_prepare;
> > + }
>
> why don't you just rename omap4_* into omap_* and add cpu-based checks
> there in order to handle differences between omap4 and omap5?
>
> If implementation will be almost the same for both, you might be able to
> save on some more duplication, no ?
Jeez NO! finish_suspend is assembly, further, it is the hottest path in
cpuidle framework - for every WFI we invoke it. we definitely dont want
to add more overhead beyond what is necessary.
>
> --
> balbi
--
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
--
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
