On Wed, 2010-12-15 at 10:07 -0800, Steve Muckle wrote:
quoted text
> 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 .. 

quoted text
> > 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 ..

quoted text
> 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.

--
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/