* Scott Ellis <scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [100315 13:27]: > > Hmm now it looks like you're missing 3630 handling? > > > > If the max_clk_div is 0x0f for 2420 and 2430, then you > > can just check for cpu_is_omap24xx(). If it's only > > different for 2420, then you can check for cpu_is_omap2420(). > > > > That way it should be more future proof, and you don't > > need to change it for new processors. > > > Anand Gadiyar <gadiyar <at> ti.com> verified 0x0f for the 2430. > > I think SWPU177D is the correct TRM for the omap3630 and if so then 0x0c > is the correct value. > > I did not verify the omap44xx value and just assumed similar to the > omap3's. My bad. > > Can you or someone point me to links for the omap2420 and the omap44xx > TRMs? I'm not having any luck finding them. I don't think those are publicly available yet for 4430 and still for 2420.. But looks like 2420, 2430 and 4430 TRMs says that 0xf = 32768 max divider for CLKD. Only 3430 and 3630 TRMs says 0xd, 0xe, 0xf = Division not supported. But then again, the TRMs can have errors. > Then it can be verified whether a cpu_is_omap24xx() check is sufficient. > It probably is. Then the 4430 TRM must have an error.. Can somebody from TI confirm the CLKD max value for 4430 please? > Or if someone with access to those manuals could do a quick check... > > It's the max value of the MCSPI_CHxCONF.CLKD register field. Regards, 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
