Hi Stefano,
On 11/18/2013 03:42 AM, Stefano Babic wrote:
Hi Eric,
On 17/11/2013 18:17, Eric Nelson wrote:
Signed-off-by: Eric Nelson <eric.nel...@boundarydevices.com>
---
This patch is new in V3
arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx5/sys_proto.h | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx5/sys_proto.h
b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx5/sys_proto.h
index 9949ad1..9dad5fc 100644
--- a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx5/sys_proto.h
+++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx5/sys_proto.h
@@ -17,6 +17,10 @@
#define is_soc_rev(rev) ((get_cpu_rev() & 0xFF) - rev)
u32 get_cpu_rev(void);
+
+/* returns MXC_CPU_ value */
+#define cpu_type(rev) (((rev) >> 12)&0xff)
+
There is already a get_cpu_type() for other architectures (OMAP). We do
not need to reinvent the wheel this time, and it is correct to add
get_cpu_type(void) to sys_proto.h.
This lets also easier to understand the code because it can be directly
derived from the User's Manual: shifting 12 bit in your macro is only
because this is done in get_cpu_rev(), not because this is the offset in
the i.MX6 register.
Okay. I'll re-submit with get_cpu_type(void) implemented imx-common/cpu.c.
I still question the fact that we have two header files for i.MX5x
and i.MX6x declaring the returns implemented there.
It seems that we should have a single header for routines
implemented there.
Perhaps arch/arm/include/imx-common/cpu.h?
Please advise,
Eric
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
