Dear Chander Kashyap,
On 27 December 2011 17:48, Chander Kashyap <chander.kash...@linaro.org> wrote:
>>> > Torsten Koschorrek <koschor...@synertronixx.de>
>>> > scb9328 ARM920T (i.MXL)
>>> > diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/exynos/clock.c
>>> > b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/exynos/clock.c
>>> > index b101f96..88e2fc0 100644
>>> > --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/exynos/clock.c
>>> > +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/exynos/clock.c
>>> > @@ -125,10 +125,14 @@ static unsigned long exynos_get_pwm_clk(void)
>>> >
>>> > if (s5p_get_cpu_rev() == 0) {
>>> > /*
>>> > - * CLK_SRC_PERIL0
>>> > + * CLK_SRC_{PERIL0 | PERIC0}
>>> > * PWM_SEL [27:24]
>>> > */
>>> > +#ifdef CONFIG_EXYNOS5
>>> > + sel = readl(&clk->src_peric0);
>>> > +#else
>>> > sel = readl(&clk->src_peril0);
>>> > +#endif
>>>
>>> NAK.
>>> We don't allow to using ifdef for separating SoCs.
>>> Please refer s5pc1xx case for solve it.
>>> This comment apply to this patch globally.
>>> Please remove '#ifdef CONFIG_EXYNOS5'.
>>>
>> I have tried to reuse the code. It is possible to remove
>> #ifdef CONFIG_EXYNOS5' in clock.c with cpu_is_s5pcXXX check.
>> Is it a acceptable solution? Or is it necessary to write SoC specific
>> function
>> in clock.c as done in case of s5pc1xx/clock.c.
>>
>> Please Advice
> Removing CONFIG_EXYNOS5 and following s5pc1xx case will not allow to
> reuse the code in clock.c.
> What is the technical hindrance of not using ifdefs?
No need to reuse the code, if SoCs are different.
If need, please separate the functions.
like this,
unsigned long get_arm_clk(void)
{
if (cpu_is_s5pc110())
return s5pc110_get_arm_clk();
else
return s5pc100_get_arm_clk();
}
Thanks.
Minkyu Kang
--
from. prom.
www.promsoft.net
_______________________________________________
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
