> -----Original Message----- > From: Tony Lindgren [mailto:tony@xxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 4:34 PM > To: Premi, Sanjeev > Cc: linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] OMAP3: Add runtime check for OMAP35x > > Hi, > > * Sanjeev Premi <premi@xxxxxx> [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 <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > [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 <premi@xxxxxx> > > --- > > 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. No, the cores in OMAP3505 and OMAP3517 are very different. I have listed major differences in PATCH 2/6. These devices differ in following areas: - Power management capabilities (Only 1 power domain, 1 OPP, etc.) - EMIF4 instead of SDRC - Support for DDR2 - EMAC - USB - HECC > > 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. I did feel the need for these tests as well, and have an internal patch. It was in my queue for submission next. > > > > 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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
