Shilimkar, Santosh had written, on 10/08/2009 11:29 PM, the following:
-----Original Message-----
From: Menon, Nishanth
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 8:11 PM
To: Premi, Sanjeev
Cc: Pandita, Vikram; Shilimkar, Santosh; linux-omap; Chikkature Rajashekar,
Madhusudhan; Pais, Allen; Gadiyar, Anand; Cousson, Benoit; Kevin Hilman;
Aguirre Rodriguez, Sergio Alberto; Tony Lindgren
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] OMAP3: introduce OMAP3630
[...]
+#define OMAP3630_REV_ES1_0 0x34305034
#define OMAP443X_CLASS 0x44300034
Was expecting that this patch will add "cpu_is_omap36xx()" in cpu.h
apart from above. Is this handled in another patch ?
Idea is to re-use all 34xx code for 36xx, as per the mail
thread on list, and given in reference.
Hence at run time, the check could be:
if (omap_rev() == OMAP3630_REV_ES1_0)
xxxxx
cpu_is_omap34xx() will be true for 36xx as well.
[sp] This case seems quite similar to the OMAP35x.
Can you look at this thread:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=125372581804902&w=2
It applies equally well here as well...
I will be submitting updated patch tomorrow.
yes, any specifics should be feature based IMHO. we will need to extend
the feature list.
If we are going to handle the delta 3630 changes w.r.t 3430 with feature based approach, its probably is the best thing.
yes. i guess I can take this as an ACK ;)
But in case delat code will be added like below then having a cpu_is_omap36xx() makes more sense.
if (omap_rev() == OMAP3630_REV_ES1_0)
xxxxx
There is no harm having both cpu_is_omap36xx() and cpu_is_omap34xx() true for 3630
what is the need for this? if feature settings can handle the deltas.
give me specific example where this will be needed. if needed, we can
add this at a later point.
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
