On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 02:20:40PM +0530, Varadarajan, Charulatha wrote:
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 13:52, Felipe Balbi <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:46:04AM +0530, Varadarajan, Charulatha wrote:
diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-omap/mailbox.c b/arch/arm/plat-omap/mailbox.c
index 48e161c..a1c6bd9 100644
--- a/arch/arm/plat-omap/mailbox.c
+++ b/arch/arm/plat-omap/mailbox.c
@@ -358,6 +358,10 @@ int omap_mbox_register(struct device *parent, struct
omap_mbox **list)
ret = PTR_ERR(mbox->dev);
goto err_out;
}
+ if (cpu_is_omap44xx())
Do not use cpu_is* checks in plat-omap/*
see the previous thread.
Referring to [1], I do not find why cpu_is* checks is used in plat-omap and
why it can't be avoided.
In [1], it was suggested to create the pdata field that will be
populated at init
time using the cpu_is* check. But in this version, I am finding that
this is done
in plat-omap. This can be handled in mach-omap layer itself and can be passed
as a pdata field which can be extracted during probe.
[1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/337131/
true, since I saw mbox->rev, I confused that with something that was
coming from pdata, sorry. You're right, this is not the right way to do
it.
--
balbi
--
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
