From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 20:04:00 +0200
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/3] mxs: generalize code for print_cpuinfo()
In-Reply-To: <4FDE1A40.40008@denx.de>
References: <1339937889-15538-1-git-send-email-otavio@ossystems.com.br>
	<201206171802.49354.marex@denx.de> <4FDE1A40.40008@denx.de>
Message-ID: <201206172004.01180.marex@denx.de>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Dear Stefano Babic,

> On 17/06/2012 18:02, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >> I like that there will be support for i.MX23, too. But I dislike that
> >> everything takes the name "MX28". As you suggest in your subject, maybe
> >> it is time to rename directories, and use "mxs" (as in kernel) instead
> >> of mx28.
> > 
> > We can do that eventually, later ... it depends on the ordering of
> > Otavio's patches, I'm fine either way.
> 
> Fine with me - anyway, it is something must be done.
> 
> >>> +
> >>> +static u8 get_cpu_rev(void)
> >>> +{
> >>> +	struct mx28_digctl_regs *digctl_regs =
> >>> +		(struct mx28_digctl_regs *)MXS_DIGCTL_BASE;
> >>> +
> >>> +	return readl(&digctl_regs->hw_digctl_chipid) & 0x0000F;
> >>> +}
> >> 
> >> Everywhere (i.MX, omap, ...) get_cpu_rev returns u32. The function is
> >> currently exported, too.
> > 
> > Correct, but isn't the return value mangled somehow (like having major
> > rev. << 16 and minor rev. << 0 )? Or that's only IMX?
> 
> Checking in current implementations for get_cpu_rev() (i.MX / OMAP24 /
> OMAP3 / AM33, and even board/apollon/sys_info.c: I do not know why the
> cpu detection is inseide this file), none of them requires strictly 32
> bit. However, we should be coherent in all code - for this reason I
> dislike if one of the i.MX is implemented differently as for other SOCs.

+1

> Best regards,
> Stefano Babic

Best regards,
Marek Vasut