From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kevin Hilman Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] OMAP3630: Create architecture macros and config entries. Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 08:11:17 -0700 Message-ID: <87pr9jdnfu.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> References: <74583B8642AB8841B30447520659FCA9DD85B939@dnce01.ent.ti.com> <5A47E75E594F054BAF48C5E4FC4B92AB0309C861E2@dbde02.ent.ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-px0-f199.google.com ([209.85.216.199]:58407 "EHLO mail-px0-f199.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932092AbZIVPLQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:11:16 -0400 Received: by pxi37 with SMTP id 37so3338337pxi.15 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 2009 08:11:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5A47E75E594F054BAF48C5E4FC4B92AB0309C861E2@dbde02.ent.ti.com> (Anand Gadiyar's message of "Tue\, 22 Sep 2009 00\:11\:43 +0530") Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: "Gadiyar, Anand" Cc: "Aguirre Rodriguez, Sergio Alberto" , "Cousson, Benoit" , "Pais, Allen" , "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" , "Raju, Veeramanikandan" , "Bongale, Hariprasad" "Gadiyar, Anand" writes: >> > >> > Hi Allen, >> > >> > > -----Original Message----- >> > > From: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-omap- >> > > owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Pais, Allen >> > > Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 9:47 AM >> > > To: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org; Raju, Veeramanikandan; Bongale, >> > Hariprasad >> > > Subject: [PATCH][RFC] OMAP3630: Create architecture macros and config >> > > entries. >> > > >> > > >> > > This patch creates the architectural macros for OMAP3630. >> > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Allen Pais >> > > >> > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/Kconfig | 13 ++ >> > > arch/arm/plat-omap/include/mach/cpu.h | 30 +++++- >> > > >> > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Kconfig >> > > index 75b1c7e..618b7d5 100755 >> > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Kconfig >> > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Kconfig >> > > @@ -19,11 +19,20 @@ config ARCH_OMAP34XX >> > > bool "OMAP34xx Based System" >> > > depends on ARCH_OMAP3 >> > > >> > > +config ARCH_OMAP36XX >> > > + bool "OMAP36xx Based System" >> > > + depends on ARCH_OMAP3 >> > > + >> > > config ARCH_OMAP3430 >> > > bool "OMAP3430 support" >> > > depends on ARCH_OMAP3 && ARCH_OMAP34XX >> > > select ARCH_OMAP_OTG >> > > >> > > +config ARCH_OMAP3630 >> > > + bool "OMAP3630 support" >> > > + depends on ARCH_OMAP3 && ARCH_OMAP34XX && ARCH_OMAP36XX >> > > + select ARCH_OMAP_OTG >> > > + >> > > comment "OMAP Board Type" >> > > depends on ARCH_OMAP2 || ARCH_OMAP3 || ARCH_OMAP4 >> > > >> > > @@ -73,6 +82,10 @@ config MACH_OMAP_3430SDP >> > > bool "OMAP 3430 SDP board" >> > > depends on ARCH_OMAP3 && ARCH_OMAP34XX >> > > >> > > +config MACH_OMAP_3630SDP >> > > + bool "OMAP 3630 SDP board" >> > > + depends on ARCH_OMAP3 && ARCH_OMAP34XX & ARCH_OMAP36XX >> > > + >> > > config MACH_NOKIA_N8X0 >> > > bool "Nokia N800/N810" >> > > depends on ARCH_OMAP2420 >> > > diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/mach/cpu.h b/arch/arm/plat- >> > > omap/include/mach/cpu.h >> > > index 7a5f9e8..73c656c 100755 >> > > --- a/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/mach/cpu.h >> > > +++ b/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/mach/cpu.h >> > > @@ -157,10 +157,12 @@ IS_OMAP_CLASS(15xx, 0x15) >> > > IS_OMAP_CLASS(16xx, 0x16) >> > > IS_OMAP_CLASS(24xx, 0x24) >> > > IS_OMAP_CLASS(34xx, 0x34) >> > > +IS_OMAP_CLASS(36xx, 0x36) >> > >> > OMAP3630 is "just" an OMAP3430 in disguise. >> > I don't think it deserves a new class. It should probably be handled like >> > it was done for 1610 and 1710. >> > >> > Theoretically, it should be considered as a 3430 ES4.0, because it is an >> > OMAP3430 ES3 + couple of bug fixes + couple of improvements. >> > >> > I think, that the proposal from Sanjeev to support 35xx >> > (http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=125050987112798&w=2 ) might be leveraged >> > to handle 36xx as well. >> > >> >> I respectfully tend to disagree with this, since there are some components >> inside the chip that aren't specifically fixes, so IMHO they need to start >> from scratch about silicon revisions because of that. >> >> If there are many common points between 34xx/35xx/36xx, then rename the >> reused functions/defines to omap3, instead of omap34xx/omap35xx/omap36xx. >> >> Regards, >> Sergio >> > > I agree with Sergio. > > While it is definitely possible to write code treating the 3430 > and the 3630 as the same, they are not the same animal. We will > need to distinguish between the two at more than a few locations > in code, and we might as well add the ability to do that now. > > I see a need to distinguish between 3430 and 3630 in several locations > - there are changes in hardware IPs that are not reflected in the IP > revision information (meaning we cannot always go by CPU_HAS_FEATURE() ), > and we will need some kind of a cpu_is_* check for sure. And you're sure these HW IP changes require software changes? Please provide examples. So, TI is changing HW IP in a way that requires software changes and not providing a way for software to detect these changes? IMHO, This is completely broken HW design. Kevin