From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anand Gadiyar Subject: RE: do we need CHIP_GE_OMAP3630ES1in .oc? (was Re: [PATCH 02/19] omap3630: hwmod: sr: enable for higher ES) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:20:24 +0530 Message-ID: References: <1298116918-30744-1-git-send-email-nm@ti.com> <1298116918-30744-3-git-send-email-nm@ti.com> <4D60A5FB.8080901@ti.com> <4D60A8DE.1000805@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Return-path: Received: from na3sys009aog112.obsmtp.com ([74.125.149.207]:45717 "EHLO na3sys009aog112.obsmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752130Ab1BUFu1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Feb 2011 00:50:27 -0500 Received: by mail-fx0-f41.google.com with SMTP id 5so833776fxm.14 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2011 21:50:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4D60A8DE.1000805@ti.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Nishanth Menon , Vishwanath Sripathy Cc: linux-omap , Tony Lindgren , Kevin Hilman > Better might be to introduce and use CHIP_GE_OMAP3630ES1 in hwmod > structs in that case - that should ease things up. but the ES1 story > should be fixed I guess. > > > > What do people think of this? > > > + Anand from commit b0a1a6ce0597662c06f970643da60b8ebb5cdd1c which > introduced the code in id.c to hear his views as well. There's one instance where we needed to distinguish between ES1.0 and all later revs of the 36xx - this was in commit 58dcfb3a0f (omap: 3630: disable TLL SAR on 3630 ES1). I chose to pick the same approach that was done for 3430 ES3.0 and below. We keep two "struct powerdomain core_3xx*pwrdm" instances in mach-omap2/powerdomains34xx.h with TLL SAR disabled in one. I couldn't think up a better way to handle this at the time. - Anand