From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nishanth Menon Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9 v2] omap: generic: introduce a single check_revision Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 11:24:01 -0500 Message-ID: <4C24D821.2050207@ti.com> References: <1277472414-8676-1-git-send-email-nm@ti.com> <5A47E75E594F054BAF48C5E4FC4B92AB032366B404@dbde02.ent.ti.com> <4C24B54A.7050005@ti.com> <4C24C097.70503@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from devils.ext.ti.com ([198.47.26.153]:37586 "EHLO devils.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752540Ab0FYQYL (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jun 2010 12:24:11 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: "S, Venkatraman" Cc: "DebBarma, Tarun Kanti" , linux-omap , Tony Lindgren , Angelo Arrifano , "Zebediah C. McClure" , Alistair Buxton , Grazvydas Ignotas , Paul Walmsley , "Premi, Sanjeev" , "Shilimkar, Santosh" , "Guruswamy, Senthilvadivu" , Kevin Hilman , Tomi Valkeinen , Aaro Koskinen , "Pandita, Vikram" , "S, Vishwanath" S, Venkatraman had written, on 06/25/2010 10:16 AM, the following: > On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 8:13 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote: >> S, Venkatraman had written, on 06/25/2010 09:38 AM, the following: >>> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote: >>>> DebBarma, Tarun Kanti had written, on 06/25/2010 08:50 AM, the following: [...] >>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-omap/common.c b/arch/arm/plat-omap/common.c >>>>>> index fca73cd..f240d9a 100644 >>>>>> --- a/arch/arm/plat-omap/common.c >>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/plat-omap/common.c >>>>>> @@ -89,6 +89,18 @@ void __init omap_reserve(void) >>>>>> omap_vram_reserve_sdram_lmb(); >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> +void __init omap_check_revision(void) >>>>>> +{ >>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP1 >>>>>> + if (cpu_is_omap7xx() || cpu_is_omap15xx() || cpu_is_omap16xx()) >>>>>> + omap1_check_revision(); >>>>>> +#endif >>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP2PLUS >>>>>> + if (cpu_is_omap24xx() || cpu_is_omap34xx() || >>>>>> cpu_is_omap44xx()) >>>>>> + omap2_check_revision(); >>>>>> +#endif >>>>>> +} >>>>> Inside omap2_check_revision() there is already check for cpu type. So do >>>>> we need to have it here? Here is the code snippet!! >>>>> >>>>> void __init omap2_check_revision(void) [...] >>>> My rationale for doing it is to allow for a single OMAP build for both >>>> omap1 >>>> and omap2+ in which case the cpu_is check makes sense. >>>> we have two choices: >>>> a) remove the hope of having a single omap build (and the above logic is >>>> a >>>> bit simpler. >>> I think Tarun Kanti intended to point out the redundancy within the >>> OMAP2PLUS build path. >> yes I am aware of that. but consider the following: >> CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP1 and CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP2PLUS being defined at the same time. >> >> the logic will enter without a reason for it to do so, instead it will print >> OMAP revision unknown for OMAP1 - not desired. > > AFAIK, Tony has ruled out OMAP1 _and_ OMAP2+ multi-omap build. Thanks for clarifying. my bad.. missed that thread :(. Will post a v3 - do feel free to review and reviewd/Ack if you find it ok. > If it was indeed possible, then > a) #ifdefs are not needed ofcourse :) > b) omap2_check_revision() shouldn't emit the warning, as it doesn't > cater to all SoCs. > omap99_check_revision() could be in the later code path of > omap_check_revision() > hmm.. This will not be relevant anymore. will post a v3 which assumes that omap1 and omap2 are independent. the headers ensure that null functions are introduced when the defines are not present. [...] -- Regards, Nishanth Menon