Hi,
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 07:48:23PM +0530, Sricharan R wrote:
> On Tuesday 30 July 2013 06:40 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 04:55:39PM +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
> >> @@ -379,6 +407,13 @@ IS_OMAP_TYPE(3430, 0x3430)
> >> # define soc_is_omap543x() is_omap543x()
> >> #endif
> >>
> >> +# if defined(CONFIG_SOC_DRA7XX)
> >> +# undef soc_is_dra7xx
> >> +# undef soc_is_dra75x
> >> +# define soc_is_dra7xx() is_dra7xx()
> >> +# define soc_is_dra75x() is_dra75x()
> > since this platform is DT-only, couldn't we just believe DT-data to be
> > correct of_machine_is_compatible() ? 2/3 of this patch would be removed.
> >
> > I patched this for OMAP5 (compile-tested only, no boards available) and
> > came out with the patch below (still needs to be split):
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5-uevm.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5-uevm.dts
> > index 08b7267..b3136e5 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5-uevm.dts
> > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5-uevm.dts
> > @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@
> >
> > / {
> > model = "TI OMAP5 uEVM board";
> > - compatible = "ti,omap5-uevm", "ti,omap5";
> > + compatible = "ti,omap5-uevm", "ti,omap5432-es2.0", "ti,omap5";
> >
> ok, nice and simpler way.
> But would this make different revisions, to appear the same ?
well omap5-uevm is omap5432 es2.0 only, right ? If a new board comes up,
it should be treated as such, then you can pass a different string to
that new board's compatible attribute.
--
balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
