[PATCH v2 00/18] OMAP4: PM data big spring cleanup and fixes

[Rajendra Nayak]

On 7/7/2011 11:39 PM, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2011, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>
>> * Rajendra Nayak<rnayak at ti.com>  [110706 22:26]:
>>> On 7/6/2011 12:19 AM, Paul Walmsley wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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_initcall to 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_initcall fixup initially either.
>>
>> 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.
>
> Rajendra's patch series doesn't require the 4430 ->  44XX changes in the
> PRM/CM macros (Benoît'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.

>
> It does require changing CHIP_IS_OMAP4430 to CHIP_IS_OMAP44XX in 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.

> 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