On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 06:40:54AM -0800, Daniel Walker wrote:

quoted text
> > > -#elif defined(CONFIG_ARCH_MSM8X60)
> > > +#elif defined(CONFIG_ARCH_MSM8X60) || defined(CONFIG_ARCH_MSM8960)
> > 
> > I guess it's a matter of style, and what one is trying to emphasize.
> > Having each one listed makes it easier to change them individually.
> > The file is just a listing of the addresses of each chip, so I don't
> > see much reason to try and compact it.
> 
> It just shows a deeper issue, that the namespace needs work. There's too
> much duplication here vs. 8x60 .. If you look over this whole patchset
> it looks very much like 8x60 was just copied over.

There's not very much copying here, in fact there isn't very much to
the 8960 support to begin with.  Despite the confusing names, 8960 is
quite a bit different from 8[26]60.  I agree we would probably be best
with different names, which might help make the difference clearer.

David

-- 
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
--
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/