[PATCH 08/13] ARM: OMAP5: Add the WakeupGen IP updates.

[Roger Quadros]

On 05/10/2012 02:42 PM, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Roger Quadros <rogerq at ti.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 05/03/2012 10:26 AM, R Sricharan wrote:
>>> From: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar at ti.com>
>>>
>>> OMAP4 and OMAP5 share same WakeupGen IP with below few udpates on OMAP5.
>>> - Additional 32 interrupt support is added w.r.t OMAP4 design.
>>> - The AUX CORE boot registers are now made accessible from non-secure SW.
>>> - SAR offset are changed and PTMSYNC* registers are removed from SAR.
>>>
>>> Patch updates the WakeupGen code accordingly.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar at ti.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: R Sricharan <r.sricharan at ti.com>
>>> ---
>>>  arch/arm/mach-omap2/include/mach/omap-wakeupgen.h |    6 +
>>>  arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-hotplug.c                |   24 ++++-
>>>  arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-smp.c                    |   19 +++-
>>>  arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-wakeupgen.c              |  110 +++++++++++++++-----
>>>  arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap4-sar-layout.h            |   12 ++-
>>>  5 files changed, 135 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/include/mach/omap-wakeupgen.h b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/include/mach/omap-wakeupgen.h
>>> index 548de90..4d700bc 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/include/mach/omap-wakeupgen.h
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/include/mach/omap-wakeupgen.h
>>> @@ -11,15 +11,20 @@
>>>  #ifndef OMAP_ARCH_WAKEUPGEN_H
>>>  #define OMAP_ARCH_WAKEUPGEN_H
>>>
>>> +/* OMAP4 and OMAP5 has same base address */
>>> +#define OMAP_WKUPGEN_BASE                    0x48281000
>>
>> unnecessary change, why don't you just use OMAP44XX_WKUPGEN_BASE or
>> define this in the same header as OMAP44XX_WKUPGEN_BASE?
>>
> Just to avoid confusion about OMAP44XX and OMAP54XX. It's cleaner to
> remove the OMAP44XX reference if the base is generic and not depend
> on OMAP4/5.
> 
> It's not un-necessary change as such.
> 

OK, is OMAP_WKUPGEN_BASE applicable for OMAPs prior to OMAP4? If not the
naming scheme does not look appropriate.

regards,
-roger