> -----Original Message-----
> From: Menon, Nishanth
> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 11:29 PM
> To: Kevin Hilman
> Cc: Pandita, Vikram; Premi, Sanjeev; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Runtime detection of Si features
>
> Nishanth Menon had written, on 08/13/2009 11:43 AM, the following:
> > Kevin Hilman had written, on 08/13/2009 11:40 AM, the following:
> >> "Pandita, Vikram" <[email protected]> writes:
> >>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> >>>> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 11:31 AM
> >>>>>> Since most of the code seemed repetitive, macros
> >>>>>> have been used for readability.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sanjeev Premi <[email protected]>
> >>>>> I like the feature-based approach.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A couple questions though. Is there a bit/register
> that reports the
> >>>>> collapsed powerdomains of the devices with modified PRCM?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Also, how will other code query the features? You're currently
> >>>>> exporting the omap_has_*() functions, but there are no
> prototypes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think I'd rather see a static inline functions in <mach/cpu.h>
> >>>>> for checking features. Comments to that end inlined below...
> >>>> Wonder if we can setup some sort of infrastructure for:
> >>>> a) features
> >>>> b) erratas
> >>>> linked to OMAP revs + even better w.r.t silicon module(SGX,I2c)
> >>>> revisions since at times they are used across multiple OMAPs?
> >>> We are hitting exactly this issue with I2C errata 1.153
> >>> Instead of basing the errata check on cpu_is...(),
> >>> its more appropriate to base it on IP revision of I2C.
> >> Shouldn't the IP revision of I2C be avaialble in an I2C revision
> >> register an be used in the driver instead of cpu_is*?
> > what I was proposing is a much more generic infrastructure
> which i2c
> > among other modules can use. Getting IP revision is already
> available in
> > the specific IP modules REVISION registers - we might want to
> > standardize how drivers handle revision based feature/errata set to
> > ensure that they would have an optimal way to handle the
> same.. just my
> > 2 cents..
> >
> Thinking of this a little more:
> driver's smart handling aside, having a sysfs entry to dump
> the features
> and erratas for each of the modules used is so much nice to have..
> sigh.. just wondering if anyone has ideas how feasible this might be..
>
[sp] If all IPs are able to populate a "revision" field in the
device structure during init/probe then there could be generic
APIs get_ip_revision() and is_ip_revision();
Since erratas are linked to the ip versions, this could just be
a 'print' problem - whether to a sysfs/ a proc entry.
> --
> Regards,
> Nishanth Menon
> --
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
