* Premi, Sanjeev <premi@xxxxxx> [100812 15:42]: > Hi all, > > While re working on the cpu revision patch, I came > across these definitions: > > #define OMAP3630_REV_ES1_0 0x36300034 > #define OMAP3630_REV_ES1_1 0x36300134 > #define OMAP3630_REV_ES1_2 0x36300234 > > Contrast this with: > > #define OMAP3430_REV_ES1_0 0x34300034 > #define OMAP3430_REV_ES2_0 0x34301034 > #define OMAP3430_REV_ES2_1 0x34302034 > > I may have missed the discussion on this list, but > wanted to quickly check if the difference in intended > OR accidental. Hmm for those defines it should be just a running number for the revision so we should most likely just renumber the OMAP3430_REV_ES bits. > I do recognize that definitions for 3630 start at lower > nibble, so they appear to be better choice. Yeah. Care to do a patch to renumber 3430 revision bits for the next merge window? AFAIK, that should change anything in the functionality so it's only a cosmetic change. Should be grepped carefully though :) 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
