> -----Original Message----- > From: Menon, Nishanth > Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 11:29 PM > To: Kevin Hilman > Cc: Pandita, Vikram; Premi, Sanjeev; linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > 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" <vikram.pandita@xxxxxx> writes: > >> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: linux-omap-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:linux-omap-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 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 <premi@xxxxxx> > >>>>> 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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
