On Wednesday 18 February 2009, Mark A. Greer wrote: > Yep...I'm nowhere near done. > > > (That's sort of the converse of this patch ... > > removing some pseudo-commonality.) > > I don't see how its converse to what I'm doing.
Factor out common init code, so it can be shared ... .... vs removing inappropriate sharing. As I said, "sort of the converse". In your mind, what would be a more "exact" converse? And why wouldn't those EMD issues fall under "sort of"? :) > I'm trying to lay the > groudwork to enable that. Encapsulate SoC specifics in a structure > then make common code use the info to do whatever. To add a new SoC, > just fill out a new struct with the right info. Right, I see that. Interesting approach, which I don't recall coming across before. > Beats sprinkling > cpu_is_* calls all over the place, IMHO. Hopefully, cpu_is_* disappears > when this is all over. Maybe. Keep in mind that the level of effort for a fully generalized bit of logic is higher than that for a simple cpu_is() predicate. I tend to think that removing quick'n'easy solutions isn't fundamentally necessary. - Dave _______________________________________________ Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list [email protected] http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
