Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] ARM: davinci: clean up map_io functions | From | Sekhar Nori <> | Date | Thu, 7 Dec 2017 20:22:07 +0530 |
| |
On Saturday 02 December 2017 08:04 AM, David Lechner wrote: > This cleans up the map_io functions in the board init files for > mach-davinci. > > Most of the boards had a wrapper function around <board>_init(). This > wrapper is removed and the function is used directly. Additionally, the > <board>_init() functions are renamed to <board>_map_io() to match the > field name. > > Signed-off-by: David Lechner <david@lechnology.com>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-davinci/board-dm646x-evm.c b/arch/arm/mach-davinci/board-dm646x-evm.c > index cb0a41e..f0e2762 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-davinci/board-dm646x-evm.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-davinci/board-dm646x-evm.c > @@ -716,16 +716,6 @@ static void __init evm_init_i2c(void) > } > #endif > > -#define DM6467T_EVM_REF_FREQ 33000000 > - > -static void __init davinci_map_io(void) > -{ > - dm646x_init();
The call to dm646x_init() is dropped here, but I don't see it added back, at least in this patch.
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-davinci/dm646x.c b/arch/arm/mach-davinci/dm646x.c > index da21353..b3be5c8 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-davinci/dm646x.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-davinci/dm646x.c > @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ > #include <linux/platform_data/edma.h> > #include <linux/platform_data/gpio-davinci.h> > > +#include <asm/mach-types.h> > #include <asm/mach/map.h> > > #include <mach/cputype.h> > @@ -952,11 +953,16 @@ int __init dm646x_init_edma(struct edma_rsv_info *rsv) > return IS_ERR(edma_pdev) ? PTR_ERR(edma_pdev) : 0; > } > > -void __init dm646x_init(void) > +#define DM6467T_EVM_REF_FREQ 33000000 > + > +void __init dm646x_map_io(void) > { > davinci_common_init(&davinci_soc_info_dm646x); > davinci_map_sysmod(); > davinci_clk_init(davinci_soc_info_dm646x.cpu_clks); > + > + if (machine_is_davinci_dm6467tevm()) > + davinci_set_refclk_rate(DM6467T_EVM_REF_FREQ); > }
I think we should leave the DM646x case out of this since there are additional issues like introducing these EVM specific defines in a file meant for SoC.
Is this clean-up a must for you to implement rest of the series (haven't looked at other patches yet).
Thanks, Sekhar
| |