ARCH_OMAP243x vs. ARCH_OMAP2430

ARCH_OMAP243x vs. ARCH_OMAP2430

[Kevin Hilman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 509 bytes --]

In working on the platform support for MUSB for the 2430sdp, I noticed
that there are #ifdefs for CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP2430 and
CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP243X.  In the Kconfigs, only the following are available:

CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP2
CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP24XX
CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP2420
CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP2430

But in the MUSB code as well as prcm-regs.h there are #ifdefs for
OMAP243X.   Are there other 243x platforms in the wild, or should I just
convert these #ifdefs to 2430.  If converting is the right thing, here's
a patch.

Kevin


[-- Attachment #2: Kconfig-OMAP243x.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 2409 bytes --]

---
 arch/arm/mach-omap2/prcm-regs.h |    4 ++--
 drivers/usb/musb/musbdefs.h     |    2 +-
 drivers/usb/musb/omap2430.h     |    2 +-
 drivers/usb/musb/plat_uds.c     |    2 +-
 4 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

Index: dev/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prcm-regs.h
===================================================================
--- dev.orig/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prcm-regs.h
+++ dev/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prcm-regs.h
@@ -240,7 +240,7 @@
 #define GPIO3_SYSCONFIG		__REG32((GPIOX_BASE(3) + 0x10))
 #define GPIO4_SYSCONFIG		__REG32((GPIOX_BASE(4) + 0x10))
 
-#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP243X)
+#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP2430)
 #define GPIO5_SYSCONFIG		__REG32((OMAP24XX_GPIO5_BASE + 0x10))
 #endif
 
@@ -332,7 +332,7 @@
 #define GPIO4_DEBOUNCENABLE	GPIO4_REG32(0x050)
 #define GPIO4_DEBOUNCINGTIME	GPIO4_REG32(0x054)
 
-#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP243X)
+#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP2430)
 /* GPIO 5 */
 #define GPIO5_REG32(offset)	__REG32((OMAP24XX_GPIO5_BASE + (offset)))
 #define GPIO5_IRQENABLE1	GPIO5_REG32(0x01C)
Index: dev/drivers/usb/musb/musbdefs.h
===================================================================
--- dev.orig/drivers/usb/musb/musbdefs.h
+++ dev/drivers/usb/musb/musbdefs.h
@@ -202,7 +202,7 @@ enum musb_g_ep0_state {
  * directly with the "flat" model, or after setting up an index register.
  */
 
-#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_DAVINCI) || defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP243X)
+#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_DAVINCI) || defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP2430)
 /* REVISIT indexed access seemed to
  * misbehave (on DaVinci) for at least peripheral IN ...
  */
Index: dev/drivers/usb/musb/omap2430.h
===================================================================
--- dev.orig/drivers/usb/musb/omap2430.h
+++ dev/drivers/usb/musb/omap2430.h
@@ -26,6 +26,6 @@
 #define OTG_INTERFSEL		HS_OTG(0x40c)
 #define OTG_SIMENABLE		HS_OTG(0x410)
 
-#endif	/* CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP243X */
+#endif	/* CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP2430 */
 
 #endif	/* __MUSB_OMAP243X_H__ */
Index: dev/drivers/usb/musb/plat_uds.c
===================================================================
--- dev.orig/drivers/usb/musb/plat_uds.c
+++ dev/drivers/usb/musb/plat_uds.c
@@ -1302,7 +1302,7 @@ static int __init musb_core_init(u16 wTy
 
 /*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP243X
+#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP2430
 
 static irqreturn_t generic_interrupt(int irq, void *__hci)
 {

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 0 bytes --]

RE: ARCH_OMAP243x vs. ARCH_OMAP2430

[Woodruff, Richard]

> But in the MUSB code as well as prcm-regs.h there are #ifdefs for
> OMAP243X.   Are there other 243x platforms in the wild, or should I
just
> convert these #ifdefs to 2430.  If converting is the right thing,
here's
> a patch.

Those 243X's are used in MV and TI trees.  I don't think the GIT one
used it.  They probably snuck in on your end or in previous pushes
candidates from others.

They all have to be the same for sure. Looks like a good thing to fix.

Regards,
Richard W.

Re: ARCH_OMAP243x vs. ARCH_OMAP2430

[tony]

* Woodruff, Richard <r-woodruff2@ti.com> [070313 20:02]:
> > But in the MUSB code as well as prcm-regs.h there are #ifdefs for
> > OMAP243X.   Are there other 243x platforms in the wild, or should I
> just
> > convert these #ifdefs to 2430.  If converting is the right thing,
> here's
> > a patch.
> 
> Those 243X's are used in MV and TI trees.  I don't think the GIT one
> used it.  They probably snuck in on your end or in previous pushes
> candidates from others.
> 
> They all have to be the same for sure. Looks like a good thing to fix.

This is now pushed too.

Tony