On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 21:34:30 +0100 Janusz Krzysztofik <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > Almost ready with it, one more question: what do you think about > > > > splitting and moving omap_mcbsp_read()/_write() there as well? If you > > > > agree, should I submit 2 patches, one with this cleanup, the other one > > > > actually introducing cache support, or is one combined OK? > > > > > > Sounds good to me! > > ... > diff -upr git.orig/arch/arm/mach-omap1/mcbsp.c git/arch/arm/mach-omap1/mcbsp.c > --- git.orig/arch/arm/mach-omap1/mcbsp.c 2009-12-09 15:49:52.000000000 > +0100 > +++ git/arch/arm/mach-omap1/mcbsp.c 2009-12-09 16:20:43.000000000 +0100 > > +void omap_mcbsp_write(struct omap_mcbsp *mcbsp, u16 reg, u32 val) ... > diff -upr git.orig/arch/arm/mach-omap2/mcbsp.c git/arch/arm/mach-omap2/mcbsp.c > --- git.orig/arch/arm/mach-omap2/mcbsp.c 2009-12-09 15:49:52.000000000 > +0100 > +++ git/arch/arm/mach-omap2/mcbsp.c 2009-12-09 16:20:43.000000000 +0100 > > +void omap_mcbsp_write(struct omap_mcbsp *mcbsp, u16 reg, u32 val) These functions must be unique, otherwise multi-build is not possible (no idea can we do it for OMAP1?). IMO, the _write and _read functions in ./plat-omap/mcbsp.c are clean after the patch 3/5 anyway so probably we don't need this splitting? -- Jarkko -- 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
