> -----Original Message----- > From: linux-omap-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-omap- > owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nishanth Menon > Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 7:40 PM > Cc: Premi, Sanjeev; Pandita, Vikram; 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 > > 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. No need if you follow the feature based approach. " But in case delta code will be added like ....... So there was a IF condition :) Regards, Santosh -- 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
