Hi,
* Sanjeev Premi <[email protected]> [090806 13:36]:
> Added runtime check via omap2_set_globals_35xx().
>
> Parts of this patch have been derived from an earlier
> earlier patch submitted by Tony Lindgren <[email protected]>
>
> [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=123301852702797&w=2
> [2] http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=123334055822212&w=2
>
> Signed-off-by: Sanjeev Premi <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c | 115
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> arch/arm/plat-omap/common.c | 18 +++++-
> arch/arm/plat-omap/include/mach/common.h | 1 +
> arch/arm/plat-omap/include/mach/cpu.h | 64 ++++++++++++++++-
> 4 files changed, 173 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
> index a98201c..06770aa 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
> @@ -28,6 +28,14 @@
> static struct omap_chip_id omap_chip;
> static unsigned int omap_revision;
>
> +/* The new OMAP35x devices have assymetric names - OMAP3505 and OMAP3517.
> + * It is not possible to define a common macro to identify them.
> + *
> + * A quick way is to separate them across 'generations' as below.
> + */
> +#define OMAP35XX_G1 0x1 /* Applies to 3503, 3515, 3525 and 3530 */
> +#define OMAP35XX_G2 0x2 /* Applies to 3505 and 3517 */
> +
>
> unsigned int omap_rev(void)
> {
> @@ -155,12 +163,71 @@ void __init omap24xx_check_revision(void)
> pr_info("\n");
> }
>
> +static void __init omap34xx_set_revision(u8 rev, char *rev_name)
> +{
> + switch (rev) {
> + case 0:
> + omap_revision = OMAP3430_REV_ES2_0;
> + strcat(rev_name, "ES2.0");
> + break;
> + case 2:
> + omap_revision = OMAP3430_REV_ES2_1;
> + strcat(rev_name, "ES2.1");
> + break;
> + case 3:
> + omap_revision = OMAP3430_REV_ES3_0;
> + strcat(rev_name, "ES3.0");
> + break;
> + case 4:
> + omap_revision = OMAP3430_REV_ES3_1;
> + strcat(rev_name, "ES3.1");
> + break;
> + default:
> + /* Use the latest known revision as default */
> + omap_revision = OMAP3430_REV_ES3_1;
> + strcat(rev_name, "Unknown revision");
> + }
> +}
> +
> +static void __init omap35xx_set_revision(u8 rev, u8 gen, char *rev_name)
> +{
> + omap_revision = OMAP35XX_CLASS ;
> +
> + if (gen == OMAP35XX_G1) {
> + switch (rev) {
> + case 0: /* Take care of some older boards */
> + case 1:
> + omap_revision |= OMAP35XX_MASK_ES2_0;
> + strcat(rev_name, "ES2.0");
> + break;
> + case 2:
> + omap_revision |= OMAP35XX_MASK_ES2_1;
> + strcat(rev_name, "ES2.1");
> + break;
> + case 3:
> + omap_revision |= OMAP35XX_MASK_ES3_0;
> + strcat(rev_name, "ES3.0");
> + break;
> + case 4:
> + omap_revision |= OMAP35XX_MASK_ES3_1;
> + strcat(rev_name, "ES3.1");
> + break;
> + default:
> + /* Use the latest known revision as default */
> + omap_revision |= OMAP35XX_MASK_ES3_0;
> + strcat(rev_name, "Unknown revision");
> + }
> + } else {
> + strcat(rev_name, "ES1.0");
> + }
> +}
> +
To me it looks like you're checking the exact same cores as we already do
for 34xx. That is, (idcode >> 28) & 0xff for both 34xx and 35xx. So basically
they have the same omap cores.
Considering this I don't see much sense adding cpu_is_35xx() category
because cpu_is_34xx() already covers these processors. Just like cpu_is_16xx()
covers both 1610 and 1710.
Let's just rather add more feature tests for IVA2 etc as needed, then
cpu_is_35something() becomse just cpu_is_34xx() && cpu_has_iva2() or similar.
> void __init omap34xx_check_revision(void)
> {
> u32 cpuid, idcode;
> u16 hawkeye;
> u8 rev;
> - char *rev_name = "ES1.0";
> + char rev_name[16] = "";
>
> /*
> * We cannot access revision registers on ES1.0.
> @@ -184,28 +251,12 @@ void __init omap34xx_check_revision(void)
> rev = (idcode >> 28) & 0xff;
>
> if (hawkeye == 0xb7ae) {
> - switch (rev) {
> - case 0:
> - omap_revision = OMAP3430_REV_ES2_0;
> - rev_name = "ES2.0";
> - break;
> - case 2:
> - omap_revision = OMAP3430_REV_ES2_1;
> - rev_name = "ES2.1";
> - break;
> - case 3:
> - omap_revision = OMAP3430_REV_ES3_0;
> - rev_name = "ES3.0";
> - break;
> - case 4:
> - omap_revision = OMAP3430_REV_ES3_1;
> - rev_name = "ES3.1";
> - break;
> - default:
> - /* Use the latest known revision as default */
> - omap_revision = OMAP3430_REV_ES3_1;
> - rev_name = "Unknown revision\n";
> - }
> + if (cpu_is_omap35xx())
> + omap35xx_set_revision(rev, OMAP35XX_G1, rev_name);
> + else
> + omap34xx_set_revision(rev, rev_name);
> + } else if (hawkeye == 0xb868) {
> + omap35xx_set_revision(rev, OMAP35XX_G2, rev_name);
> }
Testing for hawkeye == 0xb868 test should just be added into the current
omap34xx_check_revision().
Regards,
Tony
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
