Re: [PATCH v2 01/11] msm: Add CPU queries

["Stepan Moskovchenko" <stepanm@codeaurora.org>]

> On Tue, Jan 25 2011, Zhaohui Wang wrote:
>
>> Maybe it's not appropriate to cut in your discussion.
>
> It's quite appropriate.
>
>> Can anyone explain what's the difference between qsd8X50 and msm8x60?
>> No msm8x50, right?
>
> Well, they're just part numbers, and the numbering isn't all that
> consistent over time:
> http://www.qualcomm.com/products_services/chipsets/snapdragon.html
>
> The first snapdragon device was calls a QSD (8250 and 8660).  They are


David, I think you mean "8250 and 8650" here. QSD8250 and QSD8650 are
identical as far as Linux is concerned, whereas MSM8660 is different,
having two cores, etc.


> identical as far as Linux is concerned (the modem is different).  There
> is no MSM on these.  Only these two chips have used the QSD prefix.
>
> The rest of the family went back to the original MSM prefix on the
> names, most in pairs (2 and 6 in the second digit).
>
> The names of the cpu_is macros come right off of the website above
> (including the X).
>
> The confusion is that a new chip is being called MSM8960 (web search
> pulls up lots of hits about it).  Despite any possibile similarities in
> the initial kernel support for this device, it is significantally
> different than the MSM8660.  Even the CPU is different.
>
> I've been debating whether to rename the msm8x60 tests to just pick one
> of the devices (say msm8660) to avoid the confusion with the 8960.  That
> would then, however, be confusing to someone with an MSM8260 device, so
> there isn't a solid win.
>
> The cpu_is_...() tests are the tests to distinguish which particular
> chip the kernel is running on.  They are supposed to be unique, per
> chip.
>
> Classes of chips with similar features would have other tests (see
> cpu_class_is_omap2()) made on top of these checks.
>
> David
>
>> Many thanks.
>>
>>
>> Best Regards
>> David Wange
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org
>> [mailto:linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Walker
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 3:06 PM
>> To: David Brown
>> Cc: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
>> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/11] msm: Add CPU queries
>>
>> On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 11:45 -0800, David Brown wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 25 2011, Daniel Walker wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 11:17 -0800, David Brown wrote:
>>>
>>> > I suggesting we do it across the board because consistency is a good
>>> > thing .. It also allows us to use 8x60 when 8660 and 8960 are
>>> > actually similar .. You can't deny that 8960 is similar to 8660
>>> > because your patches show some duplication due to it.
>>>
>>> You're completely missing the point of these tests.  If _anything_ is
>>> different, the macros need to be different.  I don't care if they're
>>> similar, I need to know when they are different.  That is the point of
>>> the macros.
>>
>> I said you would have macros specifically for 8660 and 8960, so if you
>> need to know when they're different then you have macro's to do that.
>>
>> Daniel
>
> --
> Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
> The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm"
> in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>


Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.