From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tony Lindgren Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH] ARM: OMAP2+: am33xx: Make am33xx as a separate class Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 00:24:54 -0700 Message-ID: <20120704072454.GO1122@atomide.com> References: <1341320447-18918-1-git-send-email-hvaibhav@ti.com> <1341320447-18918-2-git-send-email-hvaibhav@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org ([204.13.248.72]:61012 "EHLO mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933389Ab2GDHY5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jul 2012 03:24:57 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1341320447-18918-2-git-send-email-hvaibhav@ti.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Vaibhav Hiremath Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Kevin Hilman , Paul Walmsley * Vaibhav Hiremath [120703 06:12]: > Initially, we decided to make am33xx family of device to fall > under omap3 class (cpu_is_omap34xx() = true), since it carries > Cortex-A8 core. But while adding complete baseport support > (like, clock, power and hwmod) support, it is observed that, > we are creating more and more problems by treating am33xx device > as omap3 family, as nothing matches between them > (except cortex-A8 mpu). > > So, after long discussion we have came to the conclusion that, > we should not consider am33xx device as omap3 family, instead > create separate class (SOC_AM33XX) under OMAP2PLUS. > This means, for am33xx device, cpu_is_omap34xx() will return false, > and only cpu_is_am33xx() will be true. Thanks applying both. Regards, Tony