On Monday 16 March 2009, Naresh Medisetty wrote:
@@ -43,14 +48,14 @@ static int evm_hw_params(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream, unsigned sysclk; /* ASP1 on DM355 EVM is clocked by an external oscillator */
... and on this DM646x EVM ... ?
- if (machine_is_davinci_dm355_evm()) + if (cpu_is_davinci_dm355() || cpu_is_davinci_dm646x())
Shouldn't that stay as a machine_is_*() test, just adding a machine_is_davinci_dm646x_evm() case?
Code tends to get modified by clone-and-modify, and making this code be cpu-specific instead of board-specific will thus promote errors.
On top of that, there's currently an effort to minimize the amount of cpu_is_*() testing found in drivers. Patches that increase such testing, especially needlessly increasing it!, seem to be the wrong direction...
sysclk = 27000000; /* ASP0 in DM6446 EVM is clocked by U55, as configured by * board-dm644x-evm.c using GPIOs from U18. There are six * options; here we "know" we use a 48 KHz sample rate. */ - else if (machine_is_davinci_evm()) + else if (cpu_is_davinci_dm644x()) sysclk = 12288000; else