From: tony@atomide.com (Tony Lindgren) Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 08:47:20 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 02/13] ARM: OMAP5: Add minimal support for OMAP5430 SOC In-Reply-To: References: <1336029982-31898-1-git-send-email-r.sricharan@ti.com> <1336029982-31898-3-git-send-email-r.sricharan@ti.com> <20120504223933.GX5613@atomide.com> <20120507191847.GJ5088@atomide.com> Message-ID: <20120508154719.GR5088@atomide.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org * Paul Walmsley [120507 22:35]: > On Mon, 7 May 2012, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-omap at vger.kernel.org/msg67938.html > > I see. Yeah, the problem is that it's hard to figure out which SoCs > should go into SOC_OMAP3PLUS. AM33xx? TI81xx? etc. Some of these chips > draw some aspects from chips that we've historically considered part of > OMAP3, and other aspects from OMAP4-style chips. Yes agreed it should be finer grained and feature specific. > What seems better to me would be to use a more specific, IP block-focused > macro as needed. So to pick a random example, in mach-omap2/control.c, we > currently skip compilation of the scratchpad functions unless > CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP3 is defined. Instead of making this > SOC_OMAP3PLUS-dependent, or dependent on a mess of CONFIG_SOC_* macros, > maybe something like CONFIG_OMAP3430_SCM_SCRATCHPAD_FORMAT? Yes that makes sense. How about let's standardize on naming like SOC_HAS_OMAP3430_SCM_SCRATCHPAD_FORMAT? We already have similar naming for generic things like ARCH_HAS_XYZ. > Of course, for some of these cases, maybe it makes more sense to move the > code out into a separate file, control-omap3-scratchpad.c or something, > and just conditionally compile it to avoid the #ifdefs. Agreed. Regards, Tony