On Tuesday 27 August 2013 03:41 PM, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
> Use drivers/misc/sram.c driver to manage SRAM on all DT only
> OMAP platforms (am33xx, am43xx, omap4 and omap5) instead of
> the existing private implementation.
>
> Address and size related data is removed from mach-omap2/sram.c
> and now passed to drivers/misc/sram.c from DT.
>
> Users can hence use general purpose allocator apis instead of
> OMAP private ones to manage and use SRAM.
>
> Currently there are no users on SRAM on these platfoms.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@xxxxxx>
Nice getting rid of code.
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/sram.h b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/sram.h
> index ca7277c..3f83b80 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/sram.h
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/sram.h
> @@ -80,4 +80,3 @@ static inline void omap_push_sram_idle(void) {}
> #else
> #define OMAP4_SRAM_PA 0x40300000
> #endif
> -#define AM33XX_SRAM_PA 0x40300000
I guess OMAP4_SRAM_PA is left in the code to take care of errata I688?
How about removing the iotable entry for SRAM on OMAP4 and converting
omap_barriers_init() to use the gen_pool API instead of passing an
incremented address to DT?
SRAM driver is a postcore initcall so I think you it will be ready
before first WFI hits (which is when the errata triggers).
Thanks,
Sekhar
--
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
