[PATCH v2 1/3] TI81XX: Prepare for addition of TI814X support
Tony Lindgren
tony at atomide.com
Thu Sep 22 14:21:13 EDT 2011
* Pedanekar, Hemant <hemantp at ti.com> [110921 17:00]:
> Tony Lindgren wrote on Thursday, September 22, 2011 2:11 AM:
>
> > * Hemant Pedanekar <hemantp at ti.com> [110921 10:05]:
> >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-ti8168evm.c
> >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-ti8168evm.c
> >> @@ -37,16 +37,16 @@ static void __init ti8168_evm_init(void)
> >>
> >> static void __init ti8168_evm_map_io(void)
> >> {
> >> - omap2_set_globals_ti816x();
> >> - omapti816x_map_common_io();
> >> + omap2_set_globals_ti81xx();
> >> + omapti81xx_map_common_io();
> >> }
> >>
> >> MACHINE_START(TI8168EVM, "ti8168evm")
> >> /* Maintainer: Texas Instruments */
> >> .atag_offset = 0x100,
> >> .map_io = ti8168_evm_map_io,
> >> - .init_early = ti816x_init_early,
> >> - .init_irq = ti816x_init_irq,
> >> + .init_early = ti81xx_init_early,
> >> + .init_irq = ti81xx_init_irq,
> >> .timer = &omap3_timer,
> >> .init_machine = ti8168_evm_init,
> >> MACHINE_END
> >
> > Looks like you still need a minor rebase on the current cleanup
> > branch as the ti8668_evm_map_io is no longer needed. The cleanup
> > branch already has Paul's CHIP_IS removal, so that should be trivial.
> >
>
> Tony,
> Can you please clarify? Do we not need ti8168_evm_map_io() for global data
> initianlization and io init? Or, as you mentioned in comment on 3/3 of the
> series, do you mean to rename this with ti81xx and move to common.c?
Yes just have a generic one in common.c should be enough. Sorry I thought
that was already done, but looks like it was only done for omap3_map_io.
> > Ideally the rename patch would be separate without any functional
> > changes, maybe you can move the changes and additions to the next patch?
> >
> > Tony
>
> If the above understanding is correct, then I will just have to rename+move
> ti8168_evm_map_io() so the change can still be in this patch, right? Or are
> You referring to any other part which should not be in this patch?
Yes it's OK to keep it in this patch.
Tony
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list