From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: r.sricharan@ti.com (Sricharan R)
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 20:06:31 +0530
Subject: [PATCH v2 1/8] ARM: DRA7: id: Add cpu detection support for DRA7xx
 based SoCs'
In-Reply-To: <20130730142353.GL28162@radagast>
References: <1375183546-12758-1-git-send-email-rnayak@ti.com>
 <1375183546-12758-2-git-send-email-rnayak@ti.com>
 <20130730131009.GA28162@radagast> <51F7CB2F.6070705@ti.com>
 <20130730142353.GL28162@radagast>
Message-ID: <51F7CF6F.6050702@ti.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Tuesday 30 July 2013 07:53 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 07:48:23PM +0530, Sricharan R wrote:
>> On Tuesday 30 July 2013 06:40 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 04:55:39PM +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
>>>> @@ -379,6 +407,13 @@ IS_OMAP_TYPE(3430, 0x3430)
>>>>  # define soc_is_omap543x()		is_omap543x()
>>>>  #endif
>>>>  
>>>> +# if defined(CONFIG_SOC_DRA7XX)
>>>> +# undef soc_is_dra7xx
>>>> +# undef soc_is_dra75x
>>>> +# define soc_is_dra7xx()		is_dra7xx()
>>>> +# define soc_is_dra75x()		is_dra75x()
>>> since this platform is DT-only, couldn't we just believe DT-data to be
>>> correct of_machine_is_compatible() ? 2/3 of this patch would be removed.
>>>
>>> I patched this for OMAP5 (compile-tested only, no boards available) and
>>> came out with the patch below (still needs to be split):
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5-uevm.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5-uevm.dts
>>> index 08b7267..b3136e5 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5-uevm.dts
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5-uevm.dts
>>> @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@
>>>  
>>>  / {
>>>  	model = "TI OMAP5 uEVM board";
>>> -	compatible = "ti,omap5-uevm", "ti,omap5";
>>> +	compatible = "ti,omap5-uevm", "ti,omap5432-es2.0", "ti,omap5";
>>>  
>>  ok, nice and simpler way.
>>  But would this make different revisions, to appear the same ?
> well omap5-uevm is omap5432 es2.0 only, right ? If a new board comes up,
> it should be treated as such, then you can pass a different string to
> that new board's compatible attribute.
>
 Yes for OMAP5. I was thinking in general about this approach.
 For example, for OMAP4 we have same board and
 different revisions can be socketed there.

 For OMAP5, this is good.

Regards,
 Sricharan