Re: [RFC][PATCH] OMAP3: introduce OMAP3630

[Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>]

Shilimkar, Santosh had written, on 10/08/2009 11:29 PM, the following:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Menon, Nishanth
>> Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 8:11 PM
>> To: Premi, Sanjeev
>> Cc: Pandita, Vikram; Shilimkar, Santosh; linux-omap; Chikkature Rajashekar,
>> Madhusudhan; Pais, Allen; Gadiyar, Anand; Cousson, Benoit; Kevin Hilman;
>> Aguirre Rodriguez, Sergio Alberto; Tony Lindgren
>> Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] OMAP3: introduce OMAP3630
>>
[...]
>>>>>> +#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.
> 
> If we are going to handle the delta 3630 changes w.r.t 3430 with feature based approach, its probably is the best thing.
yes. i guess I can take this as an ACK ;)
> 
> But in case delat code will be added like below then having a cpu_is_omap36xx() makes more sense. 
>>> if (omap_rev() == OMAP3630_REV_ES1_0)
>>>> 	xxxxx
> There is no harm having both cpu_is_omap36xx() and cpu_is_omap34xx() true for 3630
what is the need for this? if feature settings can handle the deltas.
give me specific example where this will be needed. if needed, we can 
add this at a later point.

Regards,
Nishanth Menon