From: Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@ti.com>
To: "Hiremath, Vaibhav" <hvaibhav@ti.com>
Cc: "Nayak, Rajendra" <rnayak@ti.com>,
"paul@pwsan.com" <paul@pwsan.com>,
"linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>,
"Cousson, Benoit" <b-cousson@ti.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP: hwmod: Fix error handling in functions used OMAP4 onwards
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:01:48 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F74795C.1080506@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <79CD15C6BA57404B839C016229A409A83183FC32@DBDE01.ent.ti.com>
Hi Viabhav,
On 3/29/2012 4:14, Hiremath, Vaibhav wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 14:32:34, Nayak, Rajendra wrote:
>> On Thursday 29 March 2012 02:26 PM, Hiremath, Vaibhav wrote:
>>> The point I was trying to make here was, cpu_is_xxx() check will become ugly,
>>> as more and more devices gets added to the list, am33xx being the first one
>>> in omap34xx family.
>>
>> So are there more, other than AM33xx which are cortex A8 based but
>> share the OMAP4 PRCM IP block?
>>
>
> I would say, probably yes.
>
> But, things are so dynamic and you never know how things will shape up by
> the time you freeze the design.
So this begs the question, why does AM33xx return true from
cpu_is_omap34xx() is the architecture is based upon OMAP4 and not OMAP3?
I understand it is a Cortex-A8 versus Corex-A9, but if the architecture
is closer to OMAP4, then should it not be classed as OMAP4 and not OMAP3?
Raises another question if we should really have arch_is_omapXXXX and
not cpu_is_omapXXXX.
Cheers
Jon
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: jon-hunter@ti.com (Jon Hunter)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP: hwmod: Fix error handling in functions used OMAP4 onwards
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:01:48 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F74795C.1080506@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <79CD15C6BA57404B839C016229A409A83183FC32@DBDE01.ent.ti.com>
Hi Viabhav,
On 3/29/2012 4:14, Hiremath, Vaibhav wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 14:32:34, Nayak, Rajendra wrote:
>> On Thursday 29 March 2012 02:26 PM, Hiremath, Vaibhav wrote:
>>> The point I was trying to make here was, cpu_is_xxx() check will become ugly,
>>> as more and more devices gets added to the list, am33xx being the first one
>>> in omap34xx family.
>>
>> So are there more, other than AM33xx which are cortex A8 based but
>> share the OMAP4 PRCM IP block?
>>
>
> I would say, probably yes.
>
> But, things are so dynamic and you never know how things will shape up by
> the time you freeze the design.
So this begs the question, why does AM33xx return true from
cpu_is_omap34xx() is the architecture is based upon OMAP4 and not OMAP3?
I understand it is a Cortex-A8 versus Corex-A9, but if the architecture
is closer to OMAP4, then should it not be classed as OMAP4 and not OMAP3?
Raises another question if we should really have arch_is_omapXXXX and
not cpu_is_omapXXXX.
Cheers
Jon
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-03-29 15:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-03-27 9:58 [PATCH] ARM: OMAP: hwmod: Fix error handling in functions used OMAP4 onwards Rajendra Nayak
2012-03-27 9:58 ` Rajendra Nayak
2012-03-27 19:52 ` Jon Hunter
2012-03-27 19:52 ` Jon Hunter
2012-03-28 2:39 ` Paul Walmsley
2012-03-28 2:39 ` Paul Walmsley
2012-03-28 16:36 ` Jon Hunter
2012-03-28 16:36 ` Jon Hunter
2012-03-28 6:32 ` Hiremath, Vaibhav
2012-03-28 6:32 ` Hiremath, Vaibhav
2012-03-29 6:12 ` Rajendra Nayak
2012-03-29 6:12 ` Rajendra Nayak
2012-03-29 8:56 ` Hiremath, Vaibhav
2012-03-29 8:56 ` Hiremath, Vaibhav
2012-03-29 9:02 ` Rajendra Nayak
2012-03-29 9:02 ` Rajendra Nayak
2012-03-29 9:14 ` Hiremath, Vaibhav
2012-03-29 9:14 ` Hiremath, Vaibhav
2012-03-29 15:01 ` Jon Hunter [this message]
2012-03-29 15:01 ` Jon Hunter
2012-03-29 15:03 ` Jon Hunter
2012-03-29 15:03 ` Jon Hunter
2012-03-30 7:14 ` Hiremath, Vaibhav
2012-03-30 7:14 ` Hiremath, Vaibhav
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4F74795C.1080506@ti.com \
--to=jon-hunter@ti.com \
--cc=b-cousson@ti.com \
--cc=hvaibhav@ti.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paul@pwsan.com \
--cc=rnayak@ti.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.