On Friday 05 April 2013 07:05 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> 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.
:-)
Our emails crossed. I just said the same thing in other words.
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
