From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tony Lindgren Subject: Re: [PATCH] omap: Fix 35xx detection (Re: [PATCH] [RFC] omap: 3630: default cpu_is_omap3630 to zero) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:09:34 -0700 Message-ID: <20091013190934.GX12700@atomide.com> References: <1255380685-26765-1-git-send-email-vikram.pandita@ti.com> <20091013171814.GT12700@atomide.com> <20091013173233.GU12700@atomide.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org ([204.13.248.71]:56209 "EHLO mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760514AbZJMTKT (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:10:19 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091013173233.GU12700@atomide.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Vikram Pandita Cc: nm@ti.com, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org * Tony Lindgren [091013 11:01]: > * Tony Lindgren [091013 10:18]: > > * Vikram Pandita [091012 14:31]: > > > make default cpu_is_omap3630() return zero > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Vikram Pandita > > > --- > > > arch/arm/plat-omap/include/mach/cpu.h | 2 ++ > > > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/mach/cpu.h b/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/mach/cpu.h > > > index da9e8f8..940946e 100644 > > > --- a/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/mach/cpu.h > > > +++ b/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/mach/cpu.h > > > @@ -322,6 +322,7 @@ IS_OMAP_TYPE(3430, 0x3430) > > > #define cpu_is_omap2423() 0 > > > #define cpu_is_omap2430() 0 > > > #define cpu_is_omap3430() 0 > > > +#define cpu_is_omap3630() 0 > > > > > > /* > > > * Whether we have MULTI_OMAP1 or not, we still need to distinguish > > > @@ -386,6 +387,7 @@ IS_OMAP_TYPE(3430, 0x3430) > > > (omap3_has_sgx()) & \ > > > (!omap3_has_iva())) > > > # define cpu_is_omap3530 (cpu_is_omap3430()) > > > +# undef cpu_is_omap3630() > > > # define cpu_is_omap3630() is_omap363x() > > > #endif > > > > This undef should be just undef cpu_is_omap3630 instead of > > cpu_is_omap3630(). > > Also looking at the 35xx detection code, should it not be like this? I've merged all these fixes into the 35xx and 36xx detection patches in omap for-next branch, can you guys please check? Regards, Tony