Subject: [PATCH v3 1/4] ARM: OMAP4+: PM: Consolidate MPU subsystem PM code for re-use

From: [email-masked] (Santosh Shilimkar)
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 19:09:19 +0530

On Friday 05 April 2013 07:05 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 16:19-20130405, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 06:29:00PM +0530, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>>> OMAP5 and future OMAP based SOCs has backward compatible MPUSS
>>> IP block with OMAP4. It's programming model is mostly similar.
>>
>> s/It's/Its/
>> s/mostly //
>>
>> (similar already expands to 'almost the same' :-)
>>
>>> @@ -355,6 +389,12 @@ int __init omap4_mpuss_init(void)
>>>  
>>>  	save_l2x0_context();
>>>  
>>> +	if (cpu_is_omap44xx()) {
>>> +		omap_pm_ops.finish_suspend = omap4_finish_suspend;
>>> +		omap_pm_ops.resume = omap4_cpu_resume;
>>> +		omap_pm_ops.scu_prepare = scu_pwrst_prepare;
>>> +	}
>>
>> why don't you just rename omap4_* into omap_* and add cpu-based checks
>> there in order to handle differences between omap4 and omap5?
>>
>> If implementation will be almost the same for both, you might be able to
>> save on some more duplication, no ?
> Jeez NO! finish_suspend is assembly, further, it is the hottest path in
> cpuidle framework - for every WFI we invoke it. we definitely dont want
> to add more overhead beyond what is necessary.
:-)
Our emails crossed. I just said the same thing in other words.

Regards,
Santosh