> -----Original Message----- > From: Menon, Nishanth > Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 8:11 PM > To: Premi, Sanjeev > Cc: Pandita, Vikram; Shilimkar, Santosh; linux-omap; Chikkature Rajashekar, > Madhusudhan; Pais, Allen; Gadiyar, Anand; Cousson, Benoit; Kevin Hilman; > Aguirre Rodriguez, Sergio Alberto; Tony Lindgren > Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] OMAP3: introduce OMAP3630 > > Premi, Sanjeev had written, on 10/08/2009 09:23 AM, the following: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Pandita, Vikram > >> Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 7:01 PM > >> To: Shilimkar, Santosh; Menon, Nishanth; linux-omap > >> Cc: Chikkature Rajashekar, Madhusudhan; Pais, Allen; Gadiyar, > >> Anand; Cousson, Benoit; Kevin Hilman; Premi, Sanjeev; Aguirre > >> Rodriguez, Sergio Alberto; Tony Lindgren > >> Subject: RE: [RFC][PATCH] OMAP3: introduce OMAP3630 > >> > >> > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Shilimkar, Santosh > >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/mach/cpu.h b/arch/arm/plat- > >>>> omap/include/mach/cpu.h > >>>> index 431fec4..af1080f 100644 > >>>> --- a/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/mach/cpu.h > >>>> +++ b/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/mach/cpu.h > >>>> @@ -383,6 +383,12 @@ IS_OMAP_TYPE(3430, 0x3430) > >>>> #define OMAP3430_REV_ES2_1 0x34302034 > >>>> #define OMAP3430_REV_ES3_0 0x34303034 > >>>> #define OMAP3430_REV_ES3_1 0x34304034 > >>>> +/* NOTE: Add 36xx series below > >>>> + * If additional 34xx series are added, OMAP3430_REV_ESXXXX can be > >>>> + * added above the 3630 defines and series renumbered to ensure > >>>> + * rev() > checks to work > >>>> + */ > >>>> +#define OMAP3630_REV_ES1_0 0x34305034 > >>>> > >>>> #define OMAP443X_CLASS 0x44300034 > >>> Was expecting that this patch will add "cpu_is_omap36xx()" in cpu.h > >>> apart from above. Is this handled in another patch ? > >> Idea is to re-use all 34xx code for 36xx, as per the mail > >> thread on list, and given in reference. > >> Hence at run time, the check could be: > >> > >> if (omap_rev() == OMAP3630_REV_ES1_0) > >> xxxxx > >> > >> cpu_is_omap34xx() will be true for 36xx as well. > > > > [sp] This case seems quite similar to the OMAP35x. > > Can you look at this thread: > > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=125372581804902&w=2 > > > > It applies equally well here as well... > > I will be submitting updated patch tomorrow. > yes, any specifics should be feature based IMHO. we will need to extend > the feature list.
If we are going to handle the delta 3630 changes w.r.t 3430 with feature based approach, its probably is the best thing. But in case delat code will be added like below then having a cpu_is_omap36xx() makes more sense. >> if (omap_rev() == OMAP3630_REV_ES1_0) > >> xxxxx There is no harm having both cpu_is_omap36xx() and cpu_is_omap34xx() true for 3630 Regards, Santosh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
