> On Tue, Jan 25 2011, Zhaohui Wang wrote: > >> Maybe it's not appropriate to cut in your discussion. > > It's quite appropriate. > >> Can anyone explain what's the difference between qsd8X50 and msm8x60? >> No msm8x50, right? > > Well, they're just part numbers, and the numbering isn't all that > consistent over time: > http://www.qualcomm.com/products_services/chipsets/snapdragon.html > > The first snapdragon device was calls a QSD (8250 and 8660). They are David, I think you mean "8250 and 8650" here. QSD8250 and QSD8650 are identical as far as Linux is concerned, whereas MSM8660 is different, having two cores, etc. > identical as far as Linux is concerned (the modem is different). There > is no MSM on these. Only these two chips have used the QSD prefix. > > The rest of the family went back to the original MSM prefix on the > names, most in pairs (2 and 6 in the second digit). > > The names of the cpu_is macros come right off of the website above > (including the X). > > The confusion is that a new chip is being called MSM8960 (web search > pulls up lots of hits about it). Despite any possibile similarities in > the initial kernel support for this device, it is significantally > different than the MSM8660. Even the CPU is different. > > I've been debating whether to rename the msm8x60 tests to just pick one > of the devices (say msm8660) to avoid the confusion with the 8960. That > would then, however, be confusing to someone with an MSM8260 device, so > there isn't a solid win. > > The cpu_is_...() tests are the tests to distinguish which particular > chip the kernel is running on. They are supposed to be unique, per > chip. > > Classes of chips with similar features would have other tests (see > cpu_class_is_omap2()) made on top of these checks. > > David > >> Many thanks. >> >> >> Best Regards >> David Wange >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: linux-arm-msm-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> [mailto:linux-arm-msm-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Daniel Walker >> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 3:06 PM >> To: David Brown >> Cc: linux-arm-msm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; >> linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/11] msm: Add CPU queries >> >> On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 11:45 -0800, David Brown wrote: >>> On Tue, Jan 25 2011, Daniel Walker wrote: >>> >>> > On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 11:17 -0800, David Brown wrote: >>> >>> > I suggesting we do it across the board because consistency is a good >>> > thing .. It also allows us to use 8x60 when 8660 and 8960 are >>> > actually similar .. You can't deny that 8960 is similar to 8660 >>> > because your patches show some duplication due to it. >>> >>> You're completely missing the point of these tests. If _anything_ is >>> different, the macros need to be different. I don't care if they're >>> similar, I need to know when they are different. That is the point of >>> the macros. >> >> I said you would have macros specifically for 8660 and 8960, so if you >> need to know when they're different then you have macro's to do that. >> >> Daniel > > -- > Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. > The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum. > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" > in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
