omap3630: cpu revision bits are different

omap3630: cpu revision bits are different

[Premi, Sanjeev]

Hi all,

While re working on the cpu revision patch, I came
across these definitions:

#define OMAP3630_REV_ES1_0      0x36300034
#define OMAP3630_REV_ES1_1      0x36300134
#define OMAP3630_REV_ES1_2      0x36300234

Contrast this with:

#define OMAP3430_REV_ES1_0      0x34300034
#define OMAP3430_REV_ES2_0      0x34301034
#define OMAP3430_REV_ES2_1      0x34302034

I may have missed the discussion on this list, but
wanted to quickly check if the difference in intended
OR accidental.

I do recognize that definitions for 3630 start at lower
nibble, so they appear to be better choice.

Best regards,
Sanjeev

Re: omap3630: cpu revision bits are different

[Tony Lindgren]

* Premi, Sanjeev <premi@ti.com> [100812 15:42]:
> Hi all,
> 
> While re working on the cpu revision patch, I came
> across these definitions:
> 
> #define OMAP3630_REV_ES1_0      0x36300034
> #define OMAP3630_REV_ES1_1      0x36300134
> #define OMAP3630_REV_ES1_2      0x36300234
> 
> Contrast this with:
> 
> #define OMAP3430_REV_ES1_0      0x34300034
> #define OMAP3430_REV_ES2_0      0x34301034
> #define OMAP3430_REV_ES2_1      0x34302034
> 
> I may have missed the discussion on this list, but
> wanted to quickly check if the difference in intended
> OR accidental.

Hmm for those defines it should be just a running
number for the revision so we should most likely
just renumber the OMAP3430_REV_ES bits.
 
> I do recognize that definitions for 3630 start at lower
> nibble, so they appear to be better choice.

Yeah. Care to do a patch to renumber 3430 revision
bits for the next merge window? AFAIK, that should
change anything in the functionality so it's only
a cosmetic change. Should be grepped carefully though :)

Tony

RE: omap3630: cpu revision bits are different

[Premi, Sanjeev]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Lindgren [mailto:tony@atomide.com] 
> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 11:53 AM
> To: Premi, Sanjeev
> Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: omap3630: cpu revision bits are different
> 
> * Premi, Sanjeev <premi@ti.com> [100812 15:42]:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > While re working on the cpu revision patch, I came
> > across these definitions:
> > 
> > #define OMAP3630_REV_ES1_0      0x36300034
> > #define OMAP3630_REV_ES1_1      0x36300134
> > #define OMAP3630_REV_ES1_2      0x36300234
> > 
> > Contrast this with:
> > 
> > #define OMAP3430_REV_ES1_0      0x34300034
> > #define OMAP3430_REV_ES2_0      0x34301034
> > #define OMAP3430_REV_ES2_1      0x34302034
> > 
> > I may have missed the discussion on this list, but
> > wanted to quickly check if the difference in intended
> > OR accidental.
> 
> Hmm for those defines it should be just a running
> number for the revision so we should most likely
> just renumber the OMAP3430_REV_ES bits.
>  
> > I do recognize that definitions for 3630 start at lower
> > nibble, so they appear to be better choice.
> 
> Yeah. Care to do a patch to renumber 3430 revision
> bits for the next merge window? AFAIK, that should
> change anything in the functionality so it's only
> a cosmetic change. Should be grepped carefully though :)

Will do so... will have it ready by MON.

> 
> Tony
>