On Tuesday 30 July 2013 07:53 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> 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.
>
Yes for OMAP5. I was thinking in general about this approach.
For example, for OMAP4 we have same board and
different revisions can be socketed there.
For OMAP5, this is good.
Regards,
Sricharan
--
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
