OMAP4: PM data big spring cleanup and fixes
Get series with b4
b4 am [email protected]Versions newest first · linked by author and title
- v2 Latest posting 3/30 of 18 patches 0 repliesNew
- v2 posting 2/30 of 18 patches 0 repliesSuperseded
- v2 posting 1/30 of 18 patches 0 repliesSuperseded
Patches in v2 posting 3/3 No applies recorded yet
None of the 18 patches the cover letter announces are in this archive.
Reviews trailers per patch
No Reviewed-by, Acked-by or Tested-by trailers for v2 yet.
Cover letter [PATCH v2 00/18] OMAP4: PM data big spring cleanup and fixes
Quoted 37 lines · Paul Walmsley
Quoted 29 lines · Tony Lindgren
Quoted 9 lines · Rajendra Nayak
Quoted 3 lines · Paul Walmsley
Patch 16, to me, belongs best with the 4460 support series and so I'll see if it makes sense to fit it in there somewhere.
Paul,
Do you want me to base the 4460 support series on one of your branches and re-post including the above patch?
Do we really need to do that patching right now to add base 4460 support?
If we're just doing a bunch of renames all over the place to add support for a new processor variant, something is wrong. This is exactly the kind of "crazy churn" Linus was complaining about. In this case the crazy churn is "let's rename 4430 to 44XX all over the place".
To me it's sane to assume that we can have most of 4430 features on 4460 and don't need to rename 4430 to 44XX for that. Adding 4460 should be just add few new 4460 defines, then do an
arch_initcallto fixup things between 4430 and 4460.It would be nice to get the base 4460 support merged as the patches look ready to go otherwise. Rajendra, I suggest you take a quick look and see if you can leave out the dependency to the 4430 to 44XX rename patch to add minimal 4460 support. Then we can patch in the missing features later on, most likely we don't even need the
arch_initcallfixup initially either.Quoted 5 lines
This would also leave out the dependency between the various patch series which will always lead into issues with merging code. Changes to the infrastructure issues like this should have been patched away early. The merge window is about to start and we're still waiting for the dependencies to get sorted out.
Quoted 3 lines
Rajendra's patch series doesn't require the 4430 -> 44XX changes in the PRM/CM macros (Beno?t's patch 16). That patch can be put in a separate series, if you like.
Paul, I could not find any 4430 -> 44XX changes in any PRM/CM macros in Benoit's patch 16. Instead, I see he is updating the CHIP_IS_* macros similar to what I did in my series for Powerdomain/Clockdomain.
Quoted 3 lines
It does require changing
CHIP_IS_OMAP4430toCHIP_IS_OMAP44XXin the powerdomains, clockdomains, etc.
And in hwmod, which is what Benoit's patch 16 does I guess. If we drop all these, the only alternative is to change the way the different SoC variant's are handled in these different frameworks the way Tony suggested, by having SoC specific lists.
Quoted 9 lines
To me, that seems reasonable since the
4460 isn't simply a die shrink, it has some other changes on it; but I guess you have a different view on that.I will add acks/reviewed-by:s on the 4460 patches, and maybe you can decide which ones you'd like to merge, if any.
- Paul