On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 08:04:32PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
quoted text
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 01:32:39PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > @@ -469,17 +515,26 @@ static struct platform_device omap_wdt_device = {
> >  
> >  static void omap_init_wdt(void)
> >  {
> > -	if (cpu_is_omap16xx())
> > +	if (cpu_is_omap16xx()) {
> > +		omap_wdt_pdata.fck = "armwdt_ck";
> >  		wdt_resources[0].start = 0xfffeb000;
> > -	else if (cpu_is_omap2420())
> > +	} else if (cpu_is_omap2420()) {
> > +		omap_wdt_pdata.fck = "mpu_wdt_ick";
> > +		omap_wdt_pdata.ick = "mpu_wdt_fck";
> 
> What happened to leaving this stuff inside omap_wdt.c as I said
> during the previous review?  I really don't want to see such cleanups
> when the real answer is to fix the OMAP clock API implementation.  It
> just makes for more unnecessary noise when doing this, and then yet more
> noise when we fix the OMAP clock API.
> 
> Please get rid of this and leave the clock naming crap inside omap_wdt.c.

Well, patches 4 and 5 should be ignored. Should I resend or could I rely
on the fact that people won't pick them up ?

-- 
balbi
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/