Friday 11 December 2009 14:21:16 Jarkko Nikula napisał(a): > 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?).
Function name duplication was my concern to, but since I did the same before in v5b of 3/4 and noone objected that particular piece of code, I took into consideration that it could be acceptable in case of OMAP1 vs. OMAP2/3/4. > 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? I agree (just tried to endear myself to Tony ;) ). Janusz -- 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
