On 06/13/11 16:33, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Igor Grinberg <[email protected]> [110603 06:33]: >> I'm not sure I understand what are you trying to propose here... >> If you look once again on the code, there is currently only one if >> (cpu_is_..) {} else {} >> statement currently present. >> (I can remove the "if (cpu_is_omap3630())" - it indeed has no value) >> >> Indeed, there will be some other differences... >> Each time I submit a patch, I try to be as optimal as I can, >> but again I'm open for suggestions... >> (though I think it is optimal, e.g. 33 lines for a new running board...) > What I meant is that maybe you should do the detection first in some > get_revision function and populate the gpio pins there. Sort of like > this recent beagle patch: > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/859662/
Yes I've seen this patch (actually, I was one of the people who reviewed it). > That way adding support for other differences will be easier. OK, now I understand what you mean. I think currently this is not optimal for cm-t35/3730 and will just complicate things and introduce more l-o-c. The situation on beagle board is much more complicated then on cm-t3x. Beagle has quite a large number of revisions, while cm-t35 has only one and cm-t3730 has only one. Moreover, there is no difference in gpios - same numbers are used for the same functionality. In particular the only two differences (that s/w cares about) between the boards are: 1) mux of the DSS pins 2) no NAND on cm-t3730 (still not introduced by the patch in subj) Nevertheless, I will try to come up with something, so we can see and decide what is a better option. I will base it on your devel-board branch (correct me if you want it some other way). -- Regards, Igor. -- 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
