On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx> wrote: > DebBarma, Tarun Kanti had written, on 06/25/2010 08:50 AM, the following: >> >> Nishant, >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: linux-omap-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-omap- >>> owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Menon, Nishanth >>> Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 6:57 PM >>> To: linux-omap >>> Cc: Menon, Nishanth; Tony Lindgren; Angelo Arrifano; Zebediah C. McClure; >>> Alistair Buxton; Grazvydas Ignotas; Paul Walmsley; Premi, Sanjeev; > > [...] > >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap1/io.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap1/io.c >>> index e4d8680..4f9ee73 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap1/io.c >>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap1/io.c >>> @@ -20,7 +20,6 @@ >>> >>> #include "clock.h" >>> >>> -extern void omap1_check_revision(void); >>> extern void omap_sram_init(void); >>> >>> /* >>> @@ -102,7 +101,7 @@ void __init omap1_map_common_io(void) >>> /* We want to check CPU revision early for cpu_is_omapxxxx() >>> macros. >>> * IO space mapping must be initialized before we can do that. >>> */ >>> - omap1_check_revision(); >>> + omap_check_revision(); >>> >>> #if defined (CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP730) || defined (CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP850) >>> if (cpu_is_omap7xx()) { >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/io.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/io.c >>> index 4e1f53d..eeb0e30 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/io.c >>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/io.c >>> @@ -238,7 +238,7 @@ static void __init _omap2_map_common_io(void) >>> local_flush_tlb_all(); >>> flush_cache_all(); >>> >>> - omap2_check_revision(); >>> + omap_check_revision(); >>> omap_sram_init(); >>> } >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-omap/common.c b/arch/arm/plat-omap/common.c >>> index fca73cd..f240d9a 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/plat-omap/common.c >>> +++ b/arch/arm/plat-omap/common.c >>> @@ -89,6 +89,18 @@ void __init omap_reserve(void) >>> omap_vram_reserve_sdram_lmb(); >>> } >>> >>> +void __init omap_check_revision(void) >>> +{ >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP1 >>> + if (cpu_is_omap7xx() || cpu_is_omap15xx() || cpu_is_omap16xx()) >>> + omap1_check_revision(); >>> +#endif >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP2PLUS >>> + if (cpu_is_omap24xx() || cpu_is_omap34xx() || cpu_is_omap44xx()) >>> + omap2_check_revision(); >>> +#endif >>> +} >> >> Inside omap2_check_revision() there is already check for cpu type. So do >> we need to have it here? Here is the code snippet!! >> >> void __init omap2_check_revision(void) >> { >> /* >> * At this point we have an idea about the processor revision set >> * earlier with omap2_set_globals_tap(). >> */ >> if (cpu_is_omap24xx()) { >> omap24xx_check_revision(); >> } else if (cpu_is_omap34xx()) { >> omap3_check_revision(); >> omap3_check_features(); >> omap3_cpuinfo(); >> return; >> } else if (cpu_is_omap44xx()) { >> omap4_check_revision(); >> return; >> } else { >> pr_err("OMAP revision unknown, please fix!\n"); >> } >> ... > > thanks for your comment. > > My rationale for doing it is to allow for a single OMAP build for both omap1 > and omap2+ in which case the cpu_is check makes sense. > we have two choices: > a) remove the hope of having a single omap build (and the above logic is a > bit simpler. I think Tarun Kanti intended to point out the redundancy within the OMAP2PLUS build path. i.e the cpu checks >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP2PLUS >>> + if (cpu_is_omap24xx() || cpu_is_omap34xx() || cpu_is_omap44xx()) ^^^ are not needed, as the omap2_check_revision does it anyway. Then eventually omap_is_55xx() would be needed only inside omap2_check_revision, and not in omap_check_revision(). ~Venkat. -- 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
