Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] omap: add bits for future 3430/3630 ES revisions
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009, Nishanth Menon wrote: Alexander Shishkin had written, on 11/02/2009 11:01 AM, the following: [..] Issues with the strategy of restricting to the current 8 bits: a) Why extrabits now: we have 8 bits now and we would have used all 8 bits with 3630 with the mentioned patch. What do we do with the next revision of 3430? Do we want to increase the size once it comes along? OR Do we want to do it right now? Why wait till we get additional silicons to go figure how to add those bits as Richard pointed out, when there could be one more in the pipeline? But this code will have to be revisited for each additional silicon revision anyway, right? Why reserve now? Agreed, that is one of the possible approaches we could take (and seems to be the common consensus), we can review the structure at a later point of time. http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/54847/ seems to be the right direction for now at least. Ok, so let's have it in, perhaps. Tony, Kevin, upto you guys now.. The product of this good discussion has been merged into Abhijit's first OMAP4 powerdomain patch and is queued for .34. - Paul -- 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
Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] omap: add bits for future 3430/3630 ES revisions
2009/10/21 Nishanth Menon n...@ti.com:
Paul Walmsley had written, on 10/20/2009 06:14 PM, the following:
Hi Vikram, Nishanth, Richard,
a few comments on this:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Vikram Pandita wrote:
Add bits for future expansion of omap_chip_id type field.
This is needed to accomodate 3630ES1 chip id which is bit10
...
diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/cpu.h
b/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/cpu.h
index 7cb0556..922bf1c 100644
--- a/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/cpu.h
+++ b/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/cpu.h
@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ int omap_type(void);
struct omap_chip_id {
u8 oc;
- u8 type;
+ u32 type;
};
Just wanted to understand the motivation for using the u32.
Earlier in the life of these patches, two comments were mentioned: the
desire to 'futureproof' and the desire to reserve space for other
34xx-family parts.
Regarding 'futureproofing:' that's part of the reason that a separate
struct was defined for this: to prevent code that uses it from depending on
the size of the type. (Originally it was a typedef, but Linus hates
typedefs...) So it shouldn't matter how big or small the type is here, as
long as it can handle all of the bits allocated for it.
Also mentioned was the idea of reserving space for other 34xx-family
chips. I'd suggest simply renumbering the bits when and if those versions
appear. Code that uses the omap_chip_id system should always use the macros
(e.g. CHIP_IS_OMAP3430) and not encode separate bit shift values, so
renumbering should be completely safe and transparent for core code. Module
code shouldn't be using the omap_chip code, it's for core usage only.
So, since only one bit is being added, why not continue the use of the u8?
Then when the next bits need to be added, the type can be expanded at that
point, and the bits renumbered if necessary. This should be a completely
transparent operation for code that uses it. Vikram's original patch:
http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/54847/
should be fine.
Assumptions:
a) omap_chip_id is supposedly constant for all devices within the same
family. 3630, 3430 rev x will belong to the same family.
If my understanding of the matter is correct, that's only possible if
you can foretell the total number of upcoming 34xx revisions worth
mentioning in the code. Also, can you please elaborate on why is it
supposed to be constant?
Issues with the strategy of restricting to the current 8 bits:
a) Why extrabits now:
we have 8 bits now and we would have used all 8 bits with 3630 with the
mentioned patch. What do we do with the next revision of 3430? Do we want to
increase the size once it comes along? OR Do we want to do it right now? Why
wait till we get additional silicons to go figure how to add those bits as
Richard pointed out, when there could be one more in the pipeline?
But this code will have to be revisited for each additional silicon
revision anyway, right? Why reserve now?
Regards,
--
Alex
--
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
Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] omap: add bits for future 3430/3630 ES revisions
Alexander Shishkin had written, on 11/02/2009 07:12 AM, the following:
2009/10/21 Nishanth Menon n...@ti.com:
Paul Walmsley had written, on 10/20/2009 06:14 PM, the following:
Hi Vikram, Nishanth, Richard,
a few comments on this:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Vikram Pandita wrote:
Add bits for future expansion of omap_chip_id type field.
This is needed to accomodate 3630ES1 chip id which is bit10
...
diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/cpu.h
b/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/cpu.h
index 7cb0556..922bf1c 100644
--- a/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/cpu.h
+++ b/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/cpu.h
@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ int omap_type(void);
struct omap_chip_id {
u8 oc;
- u8 type;
+ u32 type;
};
Just wanted to understand the motivation for using the u32.
Earlier in the life of these patches, two comments were mentioned: the
desire to 'futureproof' and the desire to reserve space for other
34xx-family parts.
Regarding 'futureproofing:' that's part of the reason that a separate
struct was defined for this: to prevent code that uses it from depending on
the size of the type. (Originally it was a typedef, but Linus hates
typedefs...) So it shouldn't matter how big or small the type is here, as
long as it can handle all of the bits allocated for it.
Also mentioned was the idea of reserving space for other 34xx-family
chips. I'd suggest simply renumbering the bits when and if those versions
appear. Code that uses the omap_chip_id system should always use the macros
(e.g. CHIP_IS_OMAP3430) and not encode separate bit shift values, so
renumbering should be completely safe and transparent for core code. Module
code shouldn't be using the omap_chip code, it's for core usage only.
So, since only one bit is being added, why not continue the use of the u8?
Then when the next bits need to be added, the type can be expanded at that
point, and the bits renumbered if necessary. This should be a completely
transparent operation for code that uses it. Vikram's original patch:
http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/54847/
should be fine.
Assumptions:
a) omap_chip_id is supposedly constant for all devices within the same
family. 3630, 3430 rev x will belong to the same family.
If my understanding of the matter is correct, that's only possible if
you can foretell the total number of upcoming 34xx revisions worth
mentioning in the code. Also, can you please elaborate on why is it
supposed to be constant?
The assumption I made was that omap_chip_id structure was to store info
regarding the chip and used by the pm framework. The term constant,
which I used, is probably wrong in this context, esp considering that we
cannot foretell all the upcoming revisions of the 34xx family.
Issues with the strategy of restricting to the current 8 bits:
a) Why extrabits now:
we have 8 bits now and we would have used all 8 bits with 3630 with the
mentioned patch. What do we do with the next revision of 3430? Do we want to
increase the size once it comes along? OR Do we want to do it right now? Why
wait till we get additional silicons to go figure how to add those bits as
Richard pointed out, when there could be one more in the pipeline?
But this code will have to be revisited for each additional silicon
revision anyway, right? Why reserve now?
Agreed, that is one of the possible approaches we could take (and seems
to be the common consensus), we can review the structure at a later
point of time.
http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/54847/ seems to be the right direction
for now at least.
--
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
--
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
Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] omap: add bits for future 3430/3630 ES revisions
Alexander Shishkin had written, on 11/02/2009 11:01 AM, the following: [..] Issues with the strategy of restricting to the current 8 bits: a) Why extrabits now: we have 8 bits now and we would have used all 8 bits with 3630 with the mentioned patch. What do we do with the next revision of 3430? Do we want to increase the size once it comes along? OR Do we want to do it right now? Why wait till we get additional silicons to go figure how to add those bits as Richard pointed out, when there could be one more in the pipeline? But this code will have to be revisited for each additional silicon revision anyway, right? Why reserve now? Agreed, that is one of the possible approaches we could take (and seems to be the common consensus), we can review the structure at a later point of time. http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/54847/ seems to be the right direction for now at least. Ok, so let's have it in, perhaps. Tony, Kevin, upto you guys now.. -- Regards, Nishanth Menon -- 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
RE: [PATCH v2 1/2] omap: add bits for future 3430/3630 ES revisions
-Original Message-
From: Paul Walmsley [mailto:p...@pwsan.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 6:15 PM
To: Pandita, Vikram; Woodruff, Richard; Menon, Nishanth
Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] omap: add bits for future 3430/3630 ES revisions
Hi Vikram, Nishanth, Richard,
a few comments on this:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Vikram Pandita wrote:
Add bits for future expansion of omap_chip_id type field.
This is needed to accomodate 3630ES1 chip id which is bit10
...
diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/cpu.h
b/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/cpu.h
index 7cb0556..922bf1c 100644
--- a/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/cpu.h
+++ b/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/cpu.h
@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ int omap_type(void);
struct omap_chip_id {
u8 oc;
-u8 type;
+u32 type;
};
Just wanted to understand the motivation for using the u32.
Earlier in the life of these patches, two comments were mentioned: the
desire to 'futureproof' and the desire to reserve space for other
34xx-family parts.
Regarding 'futureproofing:' that's part of the reason that a separate
struct was defined for this: to prevent code that uses it from depending
on the size of the type. (Originally it was a typedef, but Linus hates
typedefs...) So it shouldn't matter how big or small the type is here, as
long as it can handle all of the bits allocated for it.
Also mentioned was the idea of reserving space for other 34xx-family
chips. I'd suggest simply renumbering the bits when and if those versions
appear. Code that uses the omap_chip_id system should always use the
macros (e.g. CHIP_IS_OMAP3430) and not encode separate bit shift values,
so renumbering should be completely safe and transparent for core code.
Module code shouldn't be using the omap_chip code, it's for core usage
only.
So, since only one bit is being added, why not continue the use of the u8?
Then when the next bits need to be added, the type can be expanded at that
point, and the bits renumbered if necessary. This should be a completely
transparent operation for code that uses it. Vikram's original patch:
http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/54847/
My preference is to go with version one patch.
As and when required, should we add the bits.
should be fine.
Or am I missing something?
- Paul
--
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
Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] omap: add bits for future 3430/3630 ES revisions
Paul Walmsley had written, on 10/20/2009 06:14 PM, the following:
Hi Vikram, Nishanth, Richard,
a few comments on this:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Vikram Pandita wrote:
Add bits for future expansion of omap_chip_id type field.
This is needed to accomodate 3630ES1 chip id which is bit10
...
diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/cpu.h
b/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/cpu.h
index 7cb0556..922bf1c 100644
--- a/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/cpu.h
+++ b/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/cpu.h
@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ int omap_type(void);
struct omap_chip_id {
u8 oc;
- u8 type;
+ u32 type;
};
Just wanted to understand the motivation for using the u32.
Earlier in the life of these patches, two comments were mentioned: the
desire to 'futureproof' and the desire to reserve space for other
34xx-family parts.
Regarding 'futureproofing:' that's part of the reason that a separate
struct was defined for this: to prevent code that uses it from depending
on the size of the type. (Originally it was a typedef, but Linus hates
typedefs...) So it shouldn't matter how big or small the type is here, as
long as it can handle all of the bits allocated for it.
Also mentioned was the idea of reserving space for other 34xx-family
chips. I'd suggest simply renumbering the bits when and if those versions
appear. Code that uses the omap_chip_id system should always use the
macros (e.g. CHIP_IS_OMAP3430) and not encode separate bit shift values,
so renumbering should be completely safe and transparent for core code.
Module code shouldn't be using the omap_chip code, it's for core usage
only.
So, since only one bit is being added, why not continue the use of the u8?
Then when the next bits need to be added, the type can be expanded at that
point, and the bits renumbered if necessary. This should be a completely
transparent operation for code that uses it. Vikram's original patch:
http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/54847/
should be fine.
Assumptions:
a) omap_chip_id is supposedly constant for all devices within the same
family. 3630, 3430 rev x will belong to the same family.
b) we prefer bitops to using cpu_is_blahblah() for reasons of
performance (if it could be argued so)..
Issues with the strategy of restricting to the current 8 bits:
a) Why extrabits now:
we have 8 bits now and we would have used all 8 bits with 3630 with the
mentioned patch. What do we do with the next revision of 3430? Do we
want to increase the size once it comes along? OR Do we want to do it
right now? Why wait till we get additional silicons to go figure how to
add those bits as Richard pointed out, when there could be one more in
the pipeline?
b) How much extra bits should we add?
It does not matter when you pull in extra bits - u'd have to go u16 for
next rev of 3430, it is gonna be a single entry, what if we end up (god
forbid) further revisions of 3630 or even a new gen of omap3 family -
call it 3XYZ devices?
Further how expensive is it to add the u16 Vs u32 size from a memory
usage perspective?
Either way, we could choose:
a) We can choose to stick with u8 and take the next rev of 3430 ES
revision when the time is right
b) we can choose to stick with u16 for the known future (+allowing for 5
more revisions of silicons) of OMAP3.
c) We can choose to say - no one really knows how many ES/variants of a
silicon family could happen for OMAP3/OMAP4/5/6/7 etc.. and choose u32
giving us a limit beyond which we might choose to rearchitect things.
The choice is upto this community to make.. options are very easy to
implement ;).
--
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
--
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
