[PATCH 3/3] ARM: tegra: refactor tegra{20,30}_boot_secondary

[Stephen Warren]

On 02/22/2013 09:06 PM, Joseph Lo wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-02-23 at 02:28 +0800, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 02/21/2013 11:24 PM, Joseph Lo wrote:
>>> From: Hiroshi Doyu <hdoyu at nvidia.com>
>>>
>>> "tegra_boot_secondary()" has many condition branches for some Tegra
>>> SoC generations in a single function so that it's not easy to compile
>>> a kernel only for a single SoC if one wants with some reason, debug
>>> purpose(?). This patch provides SoC specific version of
>>> boot_secondary(), tegra{20,30}_boot_secondary(). This could allow
>>> any combination of SoC to be built. Those boot_secondary functions can
>>> be preparation when we ntroduce chip specific function pointers in the
>>> future without having chip dependent branches around.
>>>
>>> Also removed unused definition/prototpye.
>>
>> That "also" is really something that should be a separate patch, since
>> it's not related to the code refactoring that's the main purpose of this
>> patch.
>>
>> However, I'll let it slide this time, since I think both patches would
>> just end up in Tegra's cleanup branch anyway, even though I did already
>> point this out (multiple times?) during downstream review:-( You're
>> getting lucky because I don't feel like reviewing this again.
>>
>> I'll apply this series once I can apply patches for 3.10.
>>
>> One note to anyone else reading this patch: It does look like this is
>> duplicating code that was previously nicely shared in
>> tegra_boot_secondary(). However, I believe it's appropriate to do this
>> in this case, since the equivalent code for future SoCs (such as
>> Tegra114) is extremely different, and so the current shared code won't
>> end up being shared, and this would just make tegra_boot_secondary()
>> over-complex with conditionals when adding Tegra114 support.
> 
> Hiroshi,
> 
> Per Stephen's comment, should we drop this patch? And refactoring this
> later when I add support for Tegra114 CPU PM function.

Well I did say it wasn't worth reposting for this.

But either way, I wasn't saying anything at all about dropping the
patch, just that the patch should have been two separate patches since
it really does two separate things.