> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +struct cpu_wp *(*get_cpu_wp)(int *wp); > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > > This is not needed. > > > > > > > > > This is needed, otherwise it does not pass compile. > > > > > > This hunk is the only change to arch/arm/mach-mx5/cpu.c and get_cpu_wp > > > is introduced with this patch, so how can this break compilation? > > > Also, you should move this to a header file. Otherwise you risk of > > > having multiple (and possibly different) declarations of the same > > > function which can lead to hard to find bugs. > > > > > IMHO, get_cpu_wp is definition rather than a declaration and without it > > there will be errors in link phase. its declaration is in > > arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/mxc.h. > > Of course, you are right, my bad. Isn't this function common to al > i.MXs? In this case it should be somewhere in plat-mxc. > Anyway, it seems very odd to me to provide a global function pointer > which gets overwritten by the boards. For me it is more logical to > provide a mxc_register_workpoints() function along with a > mxc_for_each_workpoint() iterator. > > About this, I am thinking move the global function pointer to plat-mxc/cpufreq.c and add protection before call the function pointer. Anyway, it is just about provide cpu operating points to cpufreq driver, right? Even, mxc_register_workpoints() has to go some where in cpufreq.c and export a declaration in a head file, also it needs to be called before cpufreq initialization. IMO, it's merely a preference of individuals. No offence about that, correct me:)
_______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
