Thomas Petazzoni had written, on 11/16/2010 07:20 AM, the following:
would prevent you from having no OPP table (the case where a NULL OPP
table is passed is tested *before* in omapX_init_opp()).
HUH?? NULL table to a static function - what code are you talking
about?? why are you so behind
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 08:16:07 -0800
Kevin Hilman khil...@deeprootsystems.com wrote:
Yes, I'm not a big fan of the init function called multiple times
either, but I really want to minimize what board files have to do.
Historically, we tend to add all the init functions to every board
file,
Hello,
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 13:27:39 -0600
Nishanth Menon n...@ti.com wrote:
+ /*
+ * Allow multiple calls, but initialize only if not already initalized
Minor: s/initalized/initialized/.
+ * even if the previous call failed, coz, no reason we'd succeed again
+ */
+
Thomas Petazzoni wrote, on 11/16/2010 05:21 AM:
Hello,
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 13:27:39 -0600
Nishanth Menonn...@ti.com wrote:
+ /*
+* Allow multiple calls, but initialize only if not already initalized
Minor: s/initalized/initialized/.
aah thanks :)
+* even if the
Hello,
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 05:54:50 -0600
Nishanth Menon n...@ti.com wrote:
Do we really need this ? I personaly don't really like this quite of
Hey, I'm already initialized, let's do nothing silently then. Unless
there are strong reasons for which this function could be called twice,
Thomas Petazzoni wrote, on 11/16/2010 06:42 AM:
Hello,
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 05:54:50 -0600
Nishanth Menonn...@ti.com wrote:
Do we really need this ? I personaly don't really like this quite of
Hey, I'm already initialized, let's do nothing silently then. Unless
there are strong reasons for
Hello,
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 07:10:36 -0600
Nishanth Menon n...@ti.com wrote:
I feel you may have misunderstood the code, we DONOT oblige all boards
to *have* to call omapX_init_opp. It is a device_initcall - so for the
boards that dont call it, device_initcall will trigger and initialzie
Thomas Petazzoni had written, on 11/16/2010 06:42 AM, the following:
But, sorry, I find this even uglier than I thought it was :) What about
adding the obligation to boards file to call the omapX_init_opp()
function and then do their customization (if needed), then no call to
I knew I had
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 09:23:06 -0600
Nishanth Menon n...@ti.com wrote:
my initial implementation had forced board files to call the
opp_init_table, then changed that here:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-omapm=127431810922704w=2
Kevin seemed happy with the change here:
Thomas Petazzoni had written, on 11/16/2010 09:50 AM, the following:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 09:23:06 -0600
Nishanth Menon n...@ti.com wrote:
my initial implementation had forced board files to call the
opp_init_table, then changed that here:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-omapm=127431810922704w=2
Thomas Petazzoni thomas.petazz...@free-electrons.com writes:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 09:23:06 -0600
Nishanth Menon n...@ti.com wrote:
my initial implementation had forced board files to call the
opp_init_table, then changed that here:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-omapm=127431810922704w=2
Kevin
* Nishanth Menon n...@ti.com [101115 16:43]:
Thomas Petazzoni had written, on 11/15/2010 04:51 PM, the following:
Hello,
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 13:27:39 -0600
Nishanth Menon n...@ti.com wrote:
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/opp3xxx_data.h
+
+static struct omap_opp_def __initdata
* Kevin Hilman khil...@deeprootsystems.com [101116 08:06]:
Thomas Petazzoni thomas.petazz...@free-electrons.com writes:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 09:23:06 -0600
Nishanth Menon n...@ti.com wrote:
my initial implementation had forced board files to call the
opp_init_table, then changed that
Tony Lindgren had written, on 11/16/2010 02:35 PM, the following:
* Nishanth Menon n...@ti.com [101115 16:43]:
Thomas Petazzoni had written, on 11/15/2010 04:51 PM, the following:
Hello,
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 13:27:39 -0600
Nishanth Menon n...@ti.com wrote:
+++
Hello,
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 13:27:39 -0600
Nishanth Menon n...@ti.com wrote:
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/opp3xxx_data.h
+
+static struct omap_opp_def __initdata omap34xx_opp_def_list[] = {
+
+static struct omap_opp_def __initdata omap36xx_opp_def_list[] = {
Do we really want to have structure
Thomas Petazzoni had written, on 11/15/2010 04:51 PM, the following:
Hello,
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 13:27:39 -0600
Nishanth Menon n...@ti.com wrote:
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/opp3xxx_data.h
+
+static struct omap_opp_def __initdata omap34xx_opp_def_list[] = {
+
+static struct omap_opp_def
16 matches
Mail list logo
