On Tue, 12 May 2009, Kevin Hilman wrote: > As the OMAP4 patches are coming in, there seems to be a bit of variety > in the naming of functions/macros/variables etc. > > Could I propose that we just use omap4_* and OMAP4_* instead of > OMAP44XX_* or OMAP4XXXX_* etc. > > I know that OMAP2 and OMAP3 have a variety of forms here too, but > those should probably be cleaned up eventually too. > > With proper runtime revision detecting, IMO, we should only really > have the OMAP4 prefix, and leave the sub revision handling to runtime > code. > > Thoughts?
Here are some questions that we should figure out answers to before deciding: How should macros be named that only apply to specific OMAP4 chips (i.e., what happens if TI repeats a OMAP2420 to 2430 transition)? How should macros be handled that are only applicable to later ES levels? Tagging ES levels in macros has caught many bugs in the OMAP2/3 code. - Paul -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
