"Hiremath, Vaibhav" <hvaibhav@xxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 23:03:56, Hilman, Kevin wrote: >> "Hiremath, Vaibhav" <hvaibhav@xxxxxx> writes: >> >> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 04:05:32, Hilman, Kevin wrote: >> >> "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, >> > >> > Sorry for delayed response, >> > >> > Here is the ugly part, which I was referring to - >> > >> > 1) "_prm_bases" variable is static variable to the prminst44xx.c >> > >> > 2) prminst44xx.c file doesn't contain any boot time __init function, >> > So I have to either add exported __init function OR extern __prm_bases >> > variable and initialize somewhere outside this file. >> > >> > 3) Even if I create 2 separate variables, for example, >> > >> > static u32 omap44xx_prm_bases[OMAP4_MAX_PRCM_PARTITIONS] = { >> > ... >> > }; >> > >> > static u32 omap33xx_prm_bases[AM33XX_MAX_PRCM_PARTITIONS] = { >> > ... >> > }; >> > >> > Makes it difficult and messy to handle inside below code, >> > BUG_ON doesn't make sense from AM335x perspective. >> >> Then you can change the BUG_ON. >> >> static u32 omap44xx_max_partitions = ARRAY_SIZE(omap44xx_prm_bases) >> static u32 am33xx_max_partitions = ARRAY_SIZE(am33xx_prm_bases) >> static u32 max_partitions. >> >> At init time, assign max_partitions when you assign prm_bases, then >> change the BUG_ON() to be something like: >> >> BUG_ON(part >= max_partitions || part == INVALID_PARTITION) >> > Kevin, > > Getting rid of BUG_ON was the least and trivial one, the issue is 1 & 2. Oh, I didn't think those two were a problem since we do similiar things throughout the kernel. Consider using an initcall instead of calling it from somwhere else, unless there are specific dependencies. Kevin > Let me atleast attempt to implement something on this, will update you. > > Thanks, > Vaibhav > > >> 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 -- 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
