From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.251]:2697 "EHLO wolverine02.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751293Ab0LOSV1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Dec 2010 13:21:27 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] msm: Physical offset for MSM8960 From: Daniel Walker In-Reply-To: <4D0903EB.6080206@codeaurora.org> References: <1292384961-8851-1-git-send-email-stepanm@codeaurora.org> <1292384961-8851-3-git-send-email-stepanm@codeaurora.org> <4D08BFFC.3020103@ru.mvista.com> <20101215135508.GB8682@huya.qualcomm.com> <1292424054.13887.5.camel@m0nster> <20101215153837.GB15817@huya.qualcomm.com> <1292435728.7789.8.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com> <4D0903EB.6080206@codeaurora.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 10:21:12 -0800 Message-ID: <1292437272.7789.18.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Steve Muckle Cc: David Brown , Sergei Shtylyov , Stepan Moskovchenko , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On Wed, 2010-12-15 at 10:07 -0800, Steve Muckle wrote: > On 12/15/10 09:55, Daniel Walker wrote: > > The board file is very similar, plus the ifdefs. The code differences > > are the io and irq's .. The naming issue and the duplication can be > > 8x60 and 8960 are expected to diverge over time. It is not worth it to > try and make them common in this early stage where they are the same > simply because a very small amount of 8960 (and 8660 for that matter) > has been sent upstream. My scheme should deal with that .. > > simplified just by combining 8960 and 8660 .. If you create two new > > Kconfig options, > > > > config MACH_MSM8660 > > bool > > config MACH_MSM8960 > > bool > > We currently use ARCH_MSM* for SoCs, and MACH_* for boards based on > those SoCs. For this reason I think this scheme will be confusing and > lead to machine_is_() calls everywhere. You just need to look at this a different way. It's actually not much different than what we currently have, it just saves us the duplication and eliminates the naming problem .. The current version shouldn't need machine_is_() calls so then this new way shouldn't either. You just use the ifdef's .. > I suggest we rename 8x60 to 8660 (SteveMo's idea actually) if the > current naming is largely considered unacceptable. I wouldn't say it's unacceptable, it's just a open question if there's a better way. Daniel -- Sent by a consultant of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: dwalker@codeaurora.org (Daniel Walker) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 10:21:12 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 2/7] msm: Physical offset for MSM8960 In-Reply-To: <4D0903EB.6080206@codeaurora.org> References: <1292384961-8851-1-git-send-email-stepanm@codeaurora.org> <1292384961-8851-3-git-send-email-stepanm@codeaurora.org> <4D08BFFC.3020103@ru.mvista.com> <20101215135508.GB8682@huya.qualcomm.com> <1292424054.13887.5.camel@m0nster> <20101215153837.GB15817@huya.qualcomm.com> <1292435728.7789.8.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com> <4D0903EB.6080206@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: <1292437272.7789.18.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, 2010-12-15 at 10:07 -0800, Steve Muckle wrote: > On 12/15/10 09:55, Daniel Walker wrote: > > The board file is very similar, plus the ifdefs. The code differences > > are the io and irq's .. The naming issue and the duplication can be > > 8x60 and 8960 are expected to diverge over time. It is not worth it to > try and make them common in this early stage where they are the same > simply because a very small amount of 8960 (and 8660 for that matter) > has been sent upstream. My scheme should deal with that .. > > simplified just by combining 8960 and 8660 .. If you create two new > > Kconfig options, > > > > config MACH_MSM8660 > > bool > > config MACH_MSM8960 > > bool > > We currently use ARCH_MSM* for SoCs, and MACH_* for boards based on > those SoCs. For this reason I think this scheme will be confusing and > lead to machine_is_() calls everywhere. You just need to look at this a different way. It's actually not much different than what we currently have, it just saves us the duplication and eliminates the naming problem .. The current version shouldn't need machine_is_() calls so then this new way shouldn't either. You just use the ifdef's .. > I suggest we rename 8x60 to 8660 (SteveMo's idea actually) if the > current naming is largely considered unacceptable. I wouldn't say it's unacceptable, it's just a open question if there's a better way. Daniel -- Sent by a consultant of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.