Paul Walmsley [off-list ref] writes:
On Tue, 7 Dec 2010, Cousson, Benoit wrote:
quoted
On 12/7/2010 2:25 AM, Paul Walmsley wrote:
[...]
quoted
+ *
+ * XXX This file needs to be updated to align on one of "OMAP4",
"OMAP44XX",
+ * or "OMAP4430".
Yep, I was thinking to change that as well. My first thought was OMAP4 to get
a shorter name, but when we will introduce OMAP4440, we might have some new
entries, that will looks ugly close to OMAP4.
So at the end I will prefer OMAP44XX for the moment and we might renamed to
OMAP4430 or OMAP4440 for the entries that will diverge.
Do you want to change that for 2.6.38?
It will require some sync with the various users of these defines, but that
should be doable.
I don't mind waiting until after 2.6.38, I think we'll have a pretty huge
pile of patches on our hands to merge already for .38... maybe Tony or
Kevin have some opinions though.
I think this should wait 'til after 2.6.38, but be early in the next
cycle so all dependencies can be handled early.
Kevin