From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Allen Martin Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/11] tegrarcm: Add Tegra124 support Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 13:49:32 -0700 Message-ID: <20130911204932.GB29868@badger> References: <1378757761-20939-1-git-send-email-amartin@nvidia.com> <1378757761-20939-5-git-send-email-amartin@nvidia.com> <522E3FE7.8020503@wwwdotorg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <522E3FE7.8020503-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-tegra-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Stephen Warren Cc: "linux-tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" List-Id: linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 02:38:47PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 09/09/2013 02:15 PM, Allen Martin wrote: > > Add Tegra124 USB device id, miniloader, and chip SKU information. > > > @@ -481,6 +491,11 @@ static void dump_platform_info(nv3p_platform_info_t *info) > > case TEGRA114_CHIP_SKU_T114: chip_name = "t114"; break; > > default: chip_name = "unknown"; break; > > } > > + } else if (info->chip_id.id == 0x40) { > > + switch (info->sku) { > > + case TEGRA124_CHIP_SKU_T124: chip_name = "t124"; break; > > + default: chip_name = "unknown"; break; > > + } > > } else { > > chip_name = "unknown"; > > } > > Do we really need to care about the SKU here? For chips other than > Tegra20, can't we just switch on the chip ID and be done with it? The > reason I ask is that in U-Boot, there are some SKU IDs that haven't been > ported into tegrarcm, and I assume we should be keeping the two SKU ID > lists in sync. It'd be simpler if we just made tegrarcm not care about SKU. It's purely informative as we don't do anything with the information elsewhere in tegrarcm. Maybe I should just make the default be the chip family instead of "unknown" so it's more resistant to being out of sync (and also take a pass at syncing up with u-boot) ? -Allen -- nvpublic