Tony Lindgren had written, on 07/07/2010 08:30 AM, the following:
* Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx> [100707 16:09]:
Why don't you just rename u32 omap3_features to omap_features?
Then maybe move omap_features to plat-omap/common.c, and have
a generic function for getting features?
There should not be any need to have separate features variable
for each omap.
192Mhz_clk is a OMAP3 only feature(differentiator b/w omap3430,35xx
and 3630, 37xx).
Hmm, maybe it should be defined as l3_max_clk or similar instead?
it was meant as special feature of DPLL4 as i recollect
Reference:
http://marc.info/?t=126578936600005&r=1&w=2
overall, we will face this in the future. there are OMAP generic
features and OMAP family specific features. currently OMAP3 has
34xx, 35xx series and 3630 and 37xx series. in future we may see
similar things for OMAP4+ as well.. we need a differentiator when it
comes to omap3 specific features Vs omap generic feature.
Sounds it will get more complex.. We should probably set it up
with something like this then:
#define FEAT_MPU_L2_OUTER BIT(1)
#define FEAT_MPU_L2 BIT(0)
...
#define FEAT_IVA2 BIT(1)
#define FEAT_IVA BIT(0)
...
#define FEAT_L3_192 BIT(0)
...
struct omap_feature {
u32 mpu; /* MPU features */
u32 iva; /* IVA features */
u32 l3_max_clk;
...
};
I think I understand your intent here is to introduce per IP based
feature - that is really not necessary yet (we dont really have a
usecase needing this level of complexity yet). it will be a natural
evolution when we need to have such a feature handling.
currently a need for errata handling per ip is required, and we have a
mechanism (quirks) to handle it on a IP basis. here the intent was to
identify OMAP specific features in some common way.
Regards,
Tony
--
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
