[PATCH v2 1/3] TI81XX: Prepare for addition of TI814X support

[Pedanekar, Hemant]

Tony Lindgren wrote on Thursday, September 22, 2011 11:51 PM:

> * 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

Thanks. I will send updated version.

   Hemant