On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 01:35:47, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Hiremath, Vaibhav <hvaibhav@xxxxxx> [120503 23:04]:
> >
> > Tony, seems to be against adding new ARCH_OMAPAM33XX, but which _ARCH_ we need to follow for AM33XX?
> > I have to choose between ARCH_OMAP3 or ARCH_OMAP4 and what should I choose
> > here?
>
> I think you're getting confused now :) I'm against ARCH_XXX but I'm OK with
> adding SOC_XXX.
>
> We should only need ARCH_OMAP2PLUS + SOC_XXX, there should not be any need
> to add new ARCH_XXX under mach-omap2. Whatever we have left for ARCH_OMAP
> in mach-omap2 will be eventually converted to SOC_OMAP.
>
> > Does it make sense to follow ARCH_OMAPx but not follow cpu_is_omapxxx()?
> > OR
>
> No
>
> > Should we create ARCH_AMXXXX, assuming that all AM devices have similar
>
> No
>
> > memory map layout, interrupt mapping, etc...
> > OR
> > Should I just add SOC_OMAPAM33XX, wherever required?
>
> Yes, but how about just use SOC_AM33XX?
>
I will submit patches shortly (in the last cleanup now), where for am33xx
- cpu_is_omap34xx() will be false.
- Only cpu_is_am33xx() will be true here.
- Neither be under ARCH_OMAP3 nor ARCH_OMAP4, instead will be an
independent device under SOC_OMAPAM33XX.
This brings-in, some cleanup in existing code, which I will also submit
shortly.
> > Also, there are lot of thing wrapped under ARCH_OMAP3 || ARCH_OMAP4 option, which is required for AM33XX, how should we handle this?
> >
> > For example,
> >
> > "arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/clock.h"
> > struct dpll_data {
> > #if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP3) || defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP4)
> > <dpll related variables>
> > #endif
> > };
> >
> > "arch/arm/mach-omap2/clock.c"
> >
> > #if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP3) || defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP4)
> >
> > const struct clkops clkops_omap3_noncore_dpll_ops = {
> > };
> > const struct clkops clkops_omap3_core_dpll_ops = {
> > }
>
> I suggest doing some clean-up patches before adding SOC_AM33XX where
> you just convert those to be
>
> #if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP2PLUS) && !defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP2)
>
> or something similar depending if they already are inside mach-omap2
> directory. This will make them future proof for adding new SoCs
> without having to patch all over the place.
>
Tony,
Cool, I also thought exactly same solution on this, but next thought came to
my mind was, it won't scale up, since we still have dependency on ARCH_OMAP2
option. However, it will be a good temporary solution for our problem, lets
review them first (I will submit shortly).
Thanks,
Vaibhav
--
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
