On 26 January 2018 at 09:33, Michal Simek <michal.si...@xilinx.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On 17.1.2018 14:56, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
>> This commit adds CPU and silicon version information
>> consuming the SLCR IDCODE and DEVCFG MCTRL registers,
>> respectively.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ariel D'Alessandro <ar...@vanguardiasur.com.ar>
>> Signed-off-by: Ezequiel Garcia <ezequ...@vanguardiasur.com.ar>
>> ---
>> arch/arm/mach-zynq/cpu.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-zynq/cpu.c b/arch/arm/mach-zynq/cpu.c
>> index 53a07b0059c2..602f483c162b 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-zynq/cpu.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-zynq/cpu.c
>> @@ -35,6 +35,25 @@ static const struct {
>> };
>> #endif
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_DISPLAY_CPUINFO
>> +static const struct {
>> + u8 idcode;
>> + const char *cpuinfo;
>> +} zynq_cpu_info[] = {
>> + { .idcode = XILINX_ZYNQ_7007S, .cpuinfo = XILINX_XC7Z007S_NAME },
>> + { .idcode = XILINX_ZYNQ_7010, .cpuinfo = XILINX_XC7Z010_NAME },
>> + { .idcode = XILINX_ZYNQ_7012S, .cpuinfo = XILINX_XC7Z012S_NAME },
>> + { .idcode = XILINX_ZYNQ_7014S, .cpuinfo = XILINX_XC7Z014S_NAME },
>> + { .idcode = XILINX_ZYNQ_7015, .cpuinfo = XILINX_XC7Z015_NAME },
>> + { .idcode = XILINX_ZYNQ_7020, .cpuinfo = XILINX_XC7Z020_NAME },
>> + { .idcode = XILINX_ZYNQ_7030, .cpuinfo = XILINX_XC7Z030_NAME },
>> + { .idcode = XILINX_ZYNQ_7035, .cpuinfo = XILINX_XC7Z035_NAME },
>> + { .idcode = XILINX_ZYNQ_7045, .cpuinfo = XILINX_XC7Z045_NAME },
>> + { .idcode = XILINX_ZYNQ_7100, .cpuinfo = XILINX_XC7Z100_NAME },
>> + { /* Sentinel */ },
>
> This table pretty much reflect what it is in 2/5.
>
> static const struct {
> u8 idcode;
> const char *cpuinfo; /* or better name devicename */
> u32 fpga_size;
> } zynq_cpu_info[] = {
>
> From xilinx_desc I think size is unused but we can keep in filled and
> cookie is also not used and can be 0. The rest of data for xilinx_desc
> is static anyway.
>
> It means doing this properly will be the best to fill that xilinx_desc
> and also it doesn't make sense to call zynq_slcr_get_idcode() twice.
> It should be enough to detect chip once and fill pointer to actual
> configuration. And then when fpga should be add then use them. The same
> for cpuinfo. Link is already setup and you can just use it.
>
So you propose to have just one table instead of two
zynq_cpu_info and zynq_fpga_descs ?
I guess that'll work and might result in simpler code.
On the other side, the reason I kept them separate
is because each of them are compiled-in via different
compile-time options.
Having a single table will mean playing nasty ifdef
games, which usually mean trouble.
Regarding calling zynq_slcr_get_idcode twice,
is it really that bad?
--
Ezequiel García, VanguardiaSur
www.vanguardiasur.com.ar
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
