S, Venkatraman had written, on 06/25/2010 09:38 AM, the following:
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.
yes I am aware of that. but consider the following:
CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP1 and CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP2PLUS being defined at the same time.
the logic will enter without a reason for it to do so, instead it will
print OMAP revision unknown for OMAP1 - not desired.
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().
yes if we dont depend of if check as I mentioned above, I agree.
option a: as above
option b:
+#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP1
+ omap1_check_revision();
+#endif
+#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP2PLUS
+ omap2_check_revision();
+#endif
I know this is what Tarun and you are proposing, i dont have a strong
feeling against it if community is aligned on it.
~Venkat.
--
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
