Anand, > -----Original Message----- > From: Gadiyar, Anand > Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 8:42 PM > To: Aguirre Rodriguez, Sergio Alberto; Cousson, Benoit; Pais, Allen; > linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: Raju, Veeramanikandan; Bongale, Hariprasad > Subject: RE: [PATCH][RFC] OMAP3630: Create architecture macros and config > entries. > > > > > > > Hi Allen, > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: linux-omap-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-omap- > > > > owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pais, Allen > > > > Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 9:47 AM > > > > To: linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Raju, Veeramanikandan; Bongale, > > > Hariprasad > > > > Subject: [PATCH][RFC] OMAP3630: Create architecture macros and > config > > > > entries. > > > > > > > > > > > > This patch creates the architectural macros for OMAP3630. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Allen Pais <allen.pais@xxxxxx> > > > > > > > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/Kconfig | 13 ++ > > > > arch/arm/plat-omap/include/mach/cpu.h | 30 +++++- > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach- > omap2/Kconfig > > > > index 75b1c7e..618b7d5 100755 > > > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Kconfig > > > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Kconfig > > > > @@ -19,11 +19,20 @@ config ARCH_OMAP34XX > > > > bool "OMAP34xx Based System" > > > > depends on ARCH_OMAP3 > > > > > > > > +config ARCH_OMAP36XX > > > > + bool "OMAP36xx Based System" > > > > + depends on ARCH_OMAP3 > > > > + > > > > config ARCH_OMAP3430 > > > > bool "OMAP3430 support" > > > > depends on ARCH_OMAP3 && ARCH_OMAP34XX > > > > select ARCH_OMAP_OTG > > > > > > > > +config ARCH_OMAP3630 > > > > + bool "OMAP3630 support" > > > > + depends on ARCH_OMAP3 && ARCH_OMAP34XX && ARCH_OMAP36XX > > > > + select ARCH_OMAP_OTG > > > > + > > > > comment "OMAP Board Type" > > > > depends on ARCH_OMAP2 || ARCH_OMAP3 || ARCH_OMAP4 > > > > > > > > @@ -73,6 +82,10 @@ config MACH_OMAP_3430SDP > > > > bool "OMAP 3430 SDP board" > > > > depends on ARCH_OMAP3 && ARCH_OMAP34XX > > > > > > > > +config MACH_OMAP_3630SDP > > > > + bool "OMAP 3630 SDP board" > > > > + depends on ARCH_OMAP3 && ARCH_OMAP34XX & ARCH_OMAP36XX > > > > + > > > > config MACH_NOKIA_N8X0 > > > > bool "Nokia N800/N810" > > > > depends on ARCH_OMAP2420 > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/mach/cpu.h b/arch/arm/plat- > > > > omap/include/mach/cpu.h > > > > index 7a5f9e8..73c656c 100755 > > > > --- a/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/mach/cpu.h > > > > +++ b/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/mach/cpu.h > > > > @@ -157,10 +157,12 @@ IS_OMAP_CLASS(15xx, 0x15) > > > > IS_OMAP_CLASS(16xx, 0x16) > > > > IS_OMAP_CLASS(24xx, 0x24) > > > > IS_OMAP_CLASS(34xx, 0x34) > > > > +IS_OMAP_CLASS(36xx, 0x36) > > > > > > OMAP3630 is "just" an OMAP3430 in disguise. > > > I don't think it deserves a new class. It should probably be handled > like > > > it was done for 1610 and 1710. > > > > > > Theoretically, it should be considered as a 3430 ES4.0, because it is > an > > > OMAP3430 ES3 + couple of bug fixes + couple of improvements. > > > > > > I think, that the proposal from Sanjeev to support 35xx > > > (http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=125050987112798&w=2 ) might be > leveraged > > > to handle 36xx as well. > > > > > > > I respectfully tend to disagree with this, since there are some > components > > inside the chip that aren't specifically fixes, so IMHO they need to > start > > from scratch about silicon revisions because of that. > > > > If there are many common points between 34xx/35xx/36xx, then rename the > > reused functions/defines to omap3, instead of > omap34xx/omap35xx/omap36xx. > > > > Regards, > > Sergio > > > > I agree with Sergio. > > While it is definitely possible to write code treating the 3430 > and the 3630 as the same, they are not the same animal. We will > need to distinguish between the two at more than a few locations > in code, and we might as well add the ability to do that now. I agree, I didn't say anything different. > I see a need to distinguish between 3430 and 3630 in several locations > - there are changes in hardware IPs that are not reflected in the IP > revision information (meaning we cannot always go by CPU_HAS_FEATURE() ), > and we will need some kind of a cpu_is_* check for sure. Then it is pretty bad... Do you have an explicit list of such IPs? Maybe even in that case it might be useful to still use a CPU_HAS_FEATURE, but use the chip version to detect the feature version. Regards, Benoit -- 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
