On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 01:59:48PM -0500, Andreas Dannenberg wrote: > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 01:01:43PM -0500, Allred, Daniel wrote: > > On 4/21/2016 12:55 PM, Andreas Dannenberg wrote: > > >On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:26:30AM -0500, Andreas Dannenberg wrote: > > >>On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 06:37:14PM -0500, Daniel Allred wrote: > > >>>Update the CPU string output so that the device > > >>>type is now included as part of the CPU string that > > >>>is printed as the SPL or u-boot comes up. This update > > >>>adds a suffix of the form "-GP" or "-HS" for production > > >>>devices, so that general purpose (GP) and high security > > >>>(HS) can be distiguished. Applies to all OMAP5 variants. > > >> > > >>When I'm building for AM437x HS and running on the device I don't see > > >>that output. It seems like there is something funny going on with > > >>CONFIG_SPL_DISPLAY_PRINT. Even though this definition is activated in > > >>ti_omap4_common.h and ti_omap5_common.h it is not seen by > > >>preloader_console_init() in spl.c, hence the function that prints the > > >>chip-type/rev specifics never gets invoked. > > > > > >So when I run the patches on actual DRA72x HS and DRA74x HS hardware > > >I'll get the device name/type output by SPL as expected so that piece > > >works. However this patch's commit message implies the same should also > > >work on AM437x HS which it doesn't. I don't have AM437x non-secure > > >hardware at my desk but I looked at some boot logs from our test farms > > >and I also don't see the device ID output by SPL so that may be just how > > >it currently is implemented generally for AM437* and has nothing to do > > >with the patch discussed here. > > This hwinit-common.c is not used by the AM335x/AM437x parts, hence the > > statement "Applies to all OMAP5 variants" in the commit message. The omap4/5 > > use in the commit header is because the omap4 cpu.h header file had to be > > updated in order to not break omap4 builds (because those builds DO use this > > hwinit-common.c). > > Daniel, > thanks for clarifying/confirming my suspicion. Then I'm okay with this patch.
Can we do a follow-up that moves this otherwise common code into the rest of the families? -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
