From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tony Lindgren Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm: omap3: cm-t35: add support for cm-t3730 Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 00:36:49 -0700 Message-ID: <20110614073648.GI3352@atomide.com> References: <4DC27317.7020206@compulab.co.il> <1304839231-11329-1-git-send-email-grinberg@compulab.co.il> <20110531130447.GK11352@atomide.com> <4DE8E3B7.5020107@compulab.co.il> <20110613133307.GC3352@atomide.com> <4DF66659.3070102@compulab.co.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mho-03-ewr.mailhop.org ([204.13.248.66]:10226 "EHLO mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752645Ab1FNHgw (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Jun 2011 03:36:52 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4DF66659.3070102@compulab.co.il> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Igor Grinberg Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org * Igor Grinberg [110613 12:30]: > On 06/13/11 16:33, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > * Igor Grinberg [110603 06:33]: > >> I'm not sure I understand what are you trying to propose here... > >> If you look once again on the code, there is currently only one if (cpu_is_..) {} else {} > >> statement currently present. > >> (I can remove the "if (cpu_is_omap3630())" - it indeed has no value) > >> > >> Indeed, there will be some other differences... > >> Each time I submit a patch, I try to be as optimal as I can, > >> but again I'm open for suggestions... > >> (though I think it is optimal, e.g. 33 lines for a new running board...) > > What I meant is that maybe you should do the detection first in some > > get_revision function and populate the gpio pins there. Sort of like > > this recent beagle patch: > > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/859662/ > > Yes I've seen this patch (actually, I was one of the people who reviewed it). > > > That way adding support for other differences will be easier. > > OK, now I understand what you mean. > I think currently this is not optimal for cm-t35/3730 and will just complicate > things and introduce more l-o-c. > > The situation on beagle board is much more complicated then on cm-t3x. > Beagle has quite a large number of revisions, > while cm-t35 has only one and cm-t3730 has only one. > Moreover, there is no difference in gpios - same numbers are used > for the same functionality. > > In particular the only two differences (that s/w cares about) between the boards are: > 1) mux of the DSS pins > 2) no NAND on cm-t3730 (still not introduced by the patch in subj) > > Nevertheless, I will try to come up with something, > so we can see and decide what is a better option. OK if the differences are minimal, then it's up to you to which way you want to patch it: ) > I will base it on your devel-board branch > (correct me if you want it some other way). That's good thanks. Regards, Tony