Premi, Sanjeev had written, on 10/08/2009 09:23 AM, the following:
-----Original Message-----
From: Pandita, Vikram
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 7:01 PM
To: Shilimkar, Santosh; Menon, Nishanth; linux-omap
Cc: Chikkature Rajashekar, Madhusudhan; Pais, Allen; Gadiyar,
Anand; Cousson, Benoit; Kevin Hilman; Premi, Sanjeev; Aguirre
Rodriguez, Sergio Alberto; Tony Lindgren
Subject: RE: [RFC][PATCH] OMAP3: introduce OMAP3630
-----Original Message-----
From: Shilimkar, Santosh
diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/mach/cpu.h b/arch/arm/plat-
omap/include/mach/cpu.h
index 431fec4..af1080f 100644
--- a/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/mach/cpu.h
+++ b/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/mach/cpu.h
@@ -383,6 +383,12 @@ IS_OMAP_TYPE(3430, 0x3430)
#define OMAP3430_REV_ES2_1 0x34302034
#define OMAP3430_REV_ES3_0 0x34303034
#define OMAP3430_REV_ES3_1 0x34304034
+/* NOTE: Add 36xx series below
+ * If additional 34xx series are added, OMAP3430_REV_ESXXXX can be
+ * added above the 3630 defines and series renumbered to ensure
+ * rev() > checks to work
+ */
+#define OMAP3630_REV_ES1_0 0x34305034
#define OMAP443X_CLASS 0x44300034
Was expecting that this patch will add "cpu_is_omap36xx()" in cpu.h
apart from above. Is this handled in another patch ?
Idea is to re-use all 34xx code for 36xx, as per the mail
thread on list, and given in reference.
Hence at run time, the check could be:
if (omap_rev() == OMAP3630_REV_ES1_0)
xxxxx
cpu_is_omap34xx() will be true for 36xx as well.
[sp] This case seems quite similar to the OMAP35x.
Can you look at this thread:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=125372581804902&w=2
It applies equally well here as well...
I will be submitting updated patch tomorrow.
yes, any specifics should be feature based IMHO. we will need to extend
the feature list.
--
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
