Re: FEATURES - is it good enough

[Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>]

Kevin Hilman had written, on 11/20/2009 12:35 PM, the following:
> "Shilimkar, Santosh" <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> writes:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>>> Probably not something ot be attached in this patch, but...
>>>>
>>>> I'm a bit curious about something:
>>>>
>>>> Why touching omap3_features in OMAP4?
>>>>
>>>> Isn't there a omap4_features?
>>>>
>>>> Or even better, an omap_features?
>> This "is_feature" suppose to take care of Errata's also, is it?
> 
> "It's not a bug it's a feature." :)
Bug. Santosh pointed out internally to h/w discussion which clearly 
shows this as a h/w limitation. (thanks santosh)

> 
>> This is errata more than a feature..... We better differentiate in
>> this regard
> 
> I agree, I have a hard time calling this empty fifo read fault a
> "feature."  We need a similar thing for errata.
Agreed. This is a classic example why we need a common errata handling 
mechanism scalable across silicon variants on an IP basis. two problems 
in front of us:
a) what do we want to do with 8250 workaround needed for omap3630 and 
omap4? can we go ahead with features marking it clearly as a "misuse of 
features for the time being"
b) a common silicon errata handling mechanism: Does anyone have 
proposals for this? I can see it help in numerous places in our code 
today and will help readability of the code instead of getting the risk 
of "feature not a bug" misread.. ;)..

-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon