On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 1:09 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
[off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 07:10:08PM +0530, Lokesh Vutla wrote:

quoted

omap_reserve() is a stub for omap1. So creating a
stub locally in mach-omap1. And moving the definition
to mach-omap2.
This helps in moving plat/omap_secure.h local to
mach-omap2

Signed-off-by: Lokesh Vutla <redacted>
Acked-by : Santosh Shilimkar [off-list ref]
---
 arch/arm/mach-omap1/common.h             |    3 +++
 arch/arm/mach-omap2/common.c             |   20 ++++++++++++++++++++
 arch/arm/mach-omap2/common.h             |    1 +
 arch/arm/plat-omap/common.c              |   17 -----------------
 arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/common.h |    1 -
 5 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap1/common.h b/arch/arm/mach-omap1/common.h
index c2552b2..f7b01f1 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap1/common.h
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap1/common.h

@@ -90,4 +90,7 @@ extern int ocpi_enable(void);
 static inline int ocpi_enable(void) { return 0; }
 #endif

+static inline void omap_reserve(void)
+{ }

This is the wrong approach.  If OMAP1 doesn't need to do any reservation,
then OMAP1 platforms should not be calling omap_reserve() and OMAP1 should
not have this defined.

Just because OMAP2 does something one way does not mean OMAP1 needs to
copy it in every detail.

This patch just updated the code as is. I mean the empty  reserve
callback already
exist before this patch.

But I do agree with you. I think we can drop the reserve callback completly from
OMAP1 board files and then its easier to just make the omap_reserve() local to
OMAP2+ machines.

Tony,
Are you ok in dropping OMAP1 reserve callback from all OMAP1 machines ?

Regards
Santosh