Hi,
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 08:35:11AM -0500, 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.
alright, settle down ;-) whoever suggested that isn't here anymore
--
balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
