"Hiremath, Vaibhav" <hvaibhav@xxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 21:48:25, Hiremath, Vaibhav wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 23:39:22, Hilman, Kevin wrote: >> > Vaibhav Hiremath <hvaibhav@xxxxxx> writes: >> > >> > > AM33XX PRM module (L4_WK domain) will be treated as another seperate >> > > partition in _prm_bases[] table. >> > > >> > > Also, since cpu_is_omap34xx check is true for am33xx family of >> > > devices, we must check cpu_is_am33xx fisrt, in order to follow >> > > omap4 execution path. >> > >> > Can you remind me why cpu_is_omap34xx() is true for AM33xx family? >> >> Yeah sure... >> >> Kevin, >> As mentioned before, the main idea behind bringing am33xx under omap34xx >> was mainly due to "cortex-A8 family of devices". >> >> It has been discussed and aligned long time back, so >> please refer to the thread - >> >> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg41046.html >> Multiple versions of - >> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg45505.html >> >> Thanks, >> Vaibhav >> >> > These AM3xxx devices make my brain hurt. >> > >> > > Signed-off-by: Vaibhav Hiremath <hvaibhav@xxxxxx> >> > > Cc: Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxx> >> > > Cc: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@xxxxxx> >> > >> > [...] >> > >> > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prminst44xx.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prminst44xx.c >> > > index 3d9894f..fcc4123 100644 >> > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prminst44xx.c >> > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prminst44xx.c >> > > @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ >> > > #include "common.h" >> > > >> > > #include "prm44xx.h" >> > > +#include "prm33xx.h" >> > > #include "prminst44xx.h" >> > > #include "prm-regbits-44xx.h" >> > > #include "prcm44xx.h" >> > > @@ -31,6 +32,7 @@ static u32 _prm_bases[OMAP4_MAX_PRCM_PARTITIONS] = { >> > > [OMAP4430_CM2_PARTITION] = 0, >> > > [OMAP4430_SCRM_PARTITION] = 0, >> > > [OMAP4430_PRCM_MPU_PARTITION] = OMAP2_L4_IO_ADDRESS(OMAP4430_PRCM_MPU_BASE), >> > > + [AM33XX_PRM_PARTITION] = AM33XX_L4_WK_IO_ADDRESS(AM33XX_PRM_BASE), >> > > }; >> > >> > I'm not crazy about just extending the "normal" OMAP4 table. >> >> If it is required then yes (with proper comment). >> >> > That would >> > imply that with each OMAP4 derivatve we keep extending this table. >> > >> >> I would say anyway we will end up adding >> Cpu_is_xxx everywhere as we add new table for derivatives. >> >> > Instead, how about rename this to one to omap44xx_prm_bases[], then >> > create a new one called am33xx_prm_bases[]. Then, at init time, assing >> > _prm_bases to the right one based on cpu_is_. >> > >> >> Just wanted to avoid cpu_is_xxxx check here. Will specific comment wouldn't >> help here (I have clearly mentioned in patch description), may be in c file >> it is required? >> OR >> you want to be clearly separate table for code readability. >> > > Kevin, > > Any comments on this? Should I stick to what is implemented now? > cpu_is_* checks are acceptable at init time, and we use them often to initialize SoC-dependent tables/arrays etc. Kevin -- 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
