> -----Original Message----- > From: Pandita, Vikram [mailto:vikram.pandita@xxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 7:08 PM > To: Chikkature Rajashekar, Madhusudhan; 'Tony Lindgren' > Cc: linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: [PATCH]Omap3630: Add hsmmc related checks > > Madhu/Tony > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: linux-omap-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-omap- > owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > >Chikkature Rajashekar, Madhusudhan > >> From: Tony Lindgren [mailto:tony@xxxxxxxxxxx] > >> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 12:44 PM > >> To: Madhusudhan Chikkature > >> Cc: linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH]Omap3630: Add hsmmc related checks > >> > >> * Madhusudhan Chikkature <madhu.cr@xxxxxx> [091022 10:38]: > >> > From 661b13474a7af62c54f7df7a33a818c5e782cc59 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 > 2001 > >> > From: Madhu <madhu.cr@xxxxxx> > >> > Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:16:31 -0400 > >> > Subject: [PATCH] Omap3630: Add HSMMC related checks. > >> > > >> > Add omap3630 conditional checks to devices.c to allow HSMMC3 addition > >> and > >> > mux configuration for HSMMC1/2. > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Madhusudhan Chikkature <madhu.cr@xxxxxx> > >> > --- > >> > arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c | 5 +++-- > >> > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >> > > >> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c b/arch/arm/mach- > >> omap2/devices.c > >> > index 7d4513b..1fdfc7f 100644 > >> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c > >> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c > >> > @@ -575,7 +575,7 @@ static inline void omap2_mmc_mux(struct > >> > omap_mmc_platform_data *mmc_controller, > >> > } > >> > } > >> > > >> > - if (cpu_is_omap3430()) { > >> > + if (cpu_is_omap3430() || cpu_is_omap3630()) { > > Not needed. > For 34xx: > cpu_is_omap3430() returns True > cpu_is_omap3630() returns False > > For 3630: > cpu_is_omap3430() returns True > cpu_is_omap3630() returns True > > So no need to add an orring for 3630, as 3630 is treated just like a 34xx. > Hi Vikram, I have already posted V2 of this patch which uses cpu_is_omap34xx() and that should be right way. Regards, Madhu > > > >> > if (controller_nr == 0) { > >> > omap_cfg_reg(N28_3430_MMC1_CLK); > >> > omap_cfg_reg(M27_3430_MMC1_CMD); > >> > >> How about using cpu_is_omap34xx() here instead? It's more future proof. > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Tony > >> > >Yes. That makes sense. I will submit V2. > > > >Regards, > >Madhu > > > >> > @@ -642,7 +642,8 @@ void __init omap2_init_mmc(struct > >> omap_mmc_platform_data > >> > **mmc_data, > >> > irq = INT_24XX_MMC2_IRQ; > >> > break; > >> > case 2: > >> > - if (!cpu_is_omap44xx() && !cpu_is_omap34xx()) > >> > + if (!cpu_is_omap44xx() && !cpu_is_omap34xx() > >> > + && !cpu_is_omap3630()) > >> > return; > >> > base = OMAP3_MMC3_BASE; > >> > irq = INT_34XX_MMC3_IRQ; > >> > -- > >> > 1.6.0.4 > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >-- > >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 -- 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
