From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: eduardo.valentin@ti.com (Eduardo Valentin)
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 14:24:17 +0300
Subject: [RFC PATCH 06/11] OMAP2+: use control module mfd driver in
 omap_type
In-Reply-To: <CAMQu2gyjJdJZKAf+TJwQfQ2BgAXe_s-soTcs7Am6O4+yy=7cLQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1337934361-1606-1-git-send-email-eduardo.valentin@ti.com>
 <1337934361-1606-7-git-send-email-eduardo.valentin@ti.com>
 <4FBF80D5.2000600@ti.com>
 <CAMQu2gyjJdJZKAf+TJwQfQ2BgAXe_s-soTcs7Am6O4+yy=7cLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20120528112417.GF3923@besouro>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Hello,

On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 03:32:50PM +0530, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Cousson, Benoit <b-cousson@ti.com> wrote:
> > Hi Eduardo,
> >
> >
> > On 5/25/2012 10:25 AM, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> >>
> >> OMAP system control module can be probed early, then
> >> omap_type is safe to use its APIs.
> >>
> >> TODO: add support for other omap versions
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin<eduardo.valentin@ti.com>
> >> ---
> >> ?arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c | ? 16 +++++++++++++++-
> >> ?1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
> >> index 5bb9746..acfd698 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
> >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
> >> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
> >> ?#include<linux/kernel.h>
> >> ?#include<linux/init.h>
> >> ?#include<linux/io.h>
> >> +#include<linux/mfd/omap_control.h>
> >>
> >> ?#include<asm/cputype.h>
> >>
> >> @@ -40,8 +41,14 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(omap_rev);
> >>
> >> ?int omap_type(void)
> >> ?{
> >> + ? ? ? struct device *scm;
> >> + ? ? ? int ret = 0;
> >> ? ? ? ?u32 val = 0;
> >>
> >> + ? ? ? scm = omap_control_get();
> >> + ? ? ? if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(scm))
> >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? return 0;
> >> +
> >> ? ? ? ?if (cpu_is_omap24xx()) {
> >
> >
> > OK, not really related to that patch, but the previous cpu_is_omap24xx makes
> > me think of that :-)
> >
> > What about the omap<X>_check_revision used by cpu_is_XXX?
> >
> > This call is the very first one to require the control module access in
> > order to get the ID_CODE inside the control module.
> >
> > So far it still use that ugly hard coded phys -> virtual address macro that
> > is sued for that.
> >
> Agree with Benoits comment. One way to deal with this is,
> store the register offset with init and then just use it here.
> 
> That way you can get rid of all cpu_is_XXXX() from this function.

I see. I need to check how this storing would look like.
Probably we can do the storing when the early device gets probed.


> 
> Regards
> Santosh