> -----Original Message----- > From: Tony Lindgren [mailto:tony@xxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 11:53 AM > To: Premi, Sanjeev > Cc: linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: omap3630: cpu revision bits are different > > * 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 :) Will do so... will have it ready by MON. > > 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
