Re: [PATCH] Runtime detection of Si features

[Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>]

Kevin Hilman had written, on 08/13/2009 11:40 AM, the following:
> "Pandita, Vikram" <vikram.pandita@ti.com> writes:
> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of
>>> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 11:31 AM
>>>>> Since most of the code seemed repetitive, macros
>>>>> have been used for readability.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sanjeev Premi <premi@ti.com>
>>>> I like the feature-based approach.
>>>>
>>>> A couple questions though.  Is there a bit/register that reports the
>>>> collapsed powerdomains of the devices with modified PRCM?
>>>>
>>>> Also, how will other code query the features?  You're currently
>>>> exporting the omap_has_*() functions, but there are no prototypes.
>>>>
>>>> I think I'd rather see a static inline functions in <mach/cpu.h>
>>>> for checking features.  Comments to that end inlined below...
>>> Wonder if we can setup some sort of infrastructure for:
>>> a) features
>>> b) erratas
>>> linked to OMAP revs + even better w.r.t silicon module(SGX,I2c)
>>> revisions since at times they are used across multiple OMAPs?
>> We are hitting exactly this issue with I2C errata 1.153
>> Instead of basing the errata check on cpu_is...(), 
>> its more appropriate to base it on IP revision of I2C.
> 
> Shouldn't the IP revision of I2C be avaialble in an I2C revision
> register an be used in the driver instead of cpu_is*?
what I was proposing is a much more generic infrastructure which i2c 
among other modules can use. Getting IP revision is already available in 
the specific IP modules REVISION registers - we might want to 
standardize how drivers handle revision based feature/errata set to 
ensure that they would have an optimal way to handle the same.. just my 
2 cents..

-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon