* Varadarajan, Charulatha <[email protected]> [101004 01:20]: > Paul, > > <<snip>> > > > > > > > +static int __init omap_init_clocksource_32k(void) > > > > +{ > > > > + static char err[] __initdata = KERN_ERR > > > > + "%s: can't register clocksource!\n"; > > > > + > > > > + if (cpu_is_omap16xx() || cpu_class_is_omap2()) { > > > > + struct clk *sync_32k_ick; > > > > + > > > > + if (cpu_is_omap16xx()) > > > > > > Avoid cpu_is* checks in plat-omap. > > > > OK, I'll bite. Why? > > I think this is being looked for all the new code introduced > in plat-omap layer for the following reasons: > Adding cpu-is-* checks makes code unmaintainable going fwd. > plat-omap layer needs to handle common code for all omap platforms. > > This was raised for GPIO driver because of which, there was a > requirement to clean-up the gpio driver. > > Is this stand changed? Are cpu_is* checks allowed in plat-omap?
We should only need to do cpu_is* checks in arch/arm/mach-omap2, and only in few places during the init. However, this patch series moves around the existing code to avoid having oma2plus specific code be in plat-omap. Again, further patches can be done easily on this. Tony -- 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
