* Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [090922 08:12]: > "Gadiyar, Anand" <gadiyar@xxxxxx> writes: > > >> > > >> > 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 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. > > And you're sure these HW IP changes require software changes? Please > provide examples. > > So, TI is changing HW IP in a way that requires software changes and > not providing a way for software to detect these changes? > > IMHO, This is completely broken HW design. I agree, we should be able to detect various processors during the init and then just set the necessary feature flags. Please provide clear cases why we should treat 3630 as a separate chip from 3430. 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
