From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kevin Hilman Subject: Re: [PATCH-V2 3/3] arm:omap:omap4: Hook-up am33xx support to existing prm code Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 14:35:32 -0800 Message-ID: <877h0ikpxn.fsf@ti.com> References: <1326017894-7632-1-git-send-email-hvaibhav@ti.com> <1326017894-7632-4-git-send-email-hvaibhav@ti.com> <87zkdvpgz1.fsf@ti.com> <79CD15C6BA57404B839C016229A409A8317AF316@DBDE01.ent.ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from na3sys009aog111.obsmtp.com ([74.125.149.205]:55981 "EHLO na3sys009aog111.obsmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753501Ab2AWWff (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jan 2012 17:35:35 -0500 Received: by mail-gy0-f172.google.com with SMTP id g16so1172502ghb.31 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 14:35:35 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <79CD15C6BA57404B839C016229A409A8317AF316@DBDE01.ent.ti.com> (Vaibhav Hiremath's message of "Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:53:58 +0000") Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: "Hiremath, Vaibhav" Cc: "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" , "tony@atomide.com" , "Nayak, Rajendra" "Hiremath, Vaibhav" writes: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 21:48:25, Hiremath, Vaibhav wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 23:39:22, Hilman, Kevin wrote: >> > Vaibhav Hiremath writes: >> > >> > > AM33XX PRM module (L4_WK domain) will be treated as another seperate >> > > partition in _prm_bases[] table. >> > > >> > > Also, since cpu_is_omap34xx check is true for am33xx family of >> > > devices, we must check cpu_is_am33xx fisrt, in order to follow >> > > omap4 execution path. >> > >> > Can you remind me why cpu_is_omap34xx() is true for AM33xx family? >> >> Yeah sure... >> >> Kevin, >> As mentioned before, the main idea behind bringing am33xx under omap34xx >> was mainly due to "cortex-A8 family of devices". >> >> It has been discussed and aligned long time back, so >> please refer to the thread - >> >> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg41046.html >> Multiple versions of - >> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg45505.html >> >> Thanks, >> Vaibhav >> >> > These AM3xxx devices make my brain hurt. >> > >> > > Signed-off-by: Vaibhav Hiremath >> > > Cc: Kevin Hilman >> > > Cc: Rajendra Nayak >> > >> > [...] >> > >> > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prminst44xx.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prminst44xx.c >> > > index 3d9894f..fcc4123 100644 >> > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prminst44xx.c >> > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prminst44xx.c >> > > @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ >> > > #include "common.h" >> > > >> > > #include "prm44xx.h" >> > > +#include "prm33xx.h" >> > > #include "prminst44xx.h" >> > > #include "prm-regbits-44xx.h" >> > > #include "prcm44xx.h" >> > > @@ -31,6 +32,7 @@ static u32 _prm_bases[OMAP4_MAX_PRCM_PARTITIONS] = { >> > > [OMAP4430_CM2_PARTITION] = 0, >> > > [OMAP4430_SCRM_PARTITION] = 0, >> > > [OMAP4430_PRCM_MPU_PARTITION] = OMAP2_L4_IO_ADDRESS(OMAP4430_PRCM_MPU_BASE), >> > > + [AM33XX_PRM_PARTITION] = AM33XX_L4_WK_IO_ADDRESS(AM33XX_PRM_BASE), >> > > }; >> > >> > I'm not crazy about just extending the "normal" OMAP4 table. >> >> If it is required then yes (with proper comment). >> >> > That would >> > imply that with each OMAP4 derivatve we keep extending this table. >> > >> >> I would say anyway we will end up adding >> Cpu_is_xxx everywhere as we add new table for derivatives. >> >> > Instead, how about rename this to one to omap44xx_prm_bases[], then >> > create a new one called am33xx_prm_bases[]. Then, at init time, assing >> > _prm_bases to the right one based on cpu_is_. >> > >> >> Just wanted to avoid cpu_is_xxxx check here. Will specific comment wouldn't >> help here (I have clearly mentioned in patch description), may be in c file >> it is required? >> OR >> you want to be clearly separate table for code readability. >> > > Kevin, > > Any comments on this? Should I stick to what is implemented now? > cpu_is_* checks are acceptable at init time, and we use them often to initialize SoC-dependent tables/arrays etc. Kevin