On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 04:18:48PM -0800, David Brownell wrote: > 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.
Okay, now that I reread I think I know what you meant now. > 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. I agree. I'll try to not get too anal about this. :) I'm about done for the day. Will be back on Tues. Mark -- _______________________________________________ Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list [email protected] http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
