[U-Boot] [PATCH v2] OMAP4: Add ID for OMAP4470_ES1_0

Nishanth Menon
2013-04-04T17:58:55Z

On 12:54-20130404, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 11:44:14AM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> > On 19:14-20130404, Lubomir Popov wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > On 04/04/13 19:00, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> > > > On 18:57-20130404, Lubomir Popov wrote:
> > > >> V2 fixes garbled subject.
> > > > move this to diffstat section - here and in the rest of the patches.
> > > >>
> > > >> Signed-off-by: Lubomir Popov <lpopov@mm-sol.com>
> > > >>
> > > >> ---
> > > >> arch/arm/include/asm/omap_common.h | 1 +
> > > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > >>
> > > >> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/omap_common.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/omap_common.h
> > > >> index 091ddb5..f042c10 100644
> > > >> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/omap_common.h
> > > >> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/omap_common.h
> > > >> @@ -573,6 +573,7 @@ static inline u32 omap_revision(void)
> > > >> #define OMAP4430_ES2_3 0x44300230
> > > >> #define OMAP4460_ES1_0 0x44600100
> > > >> #define OMAP4460_ES1_1 0x44600110
> > > >> +#define OMAP4470_ES1_0 0x44700100
> > > > and used where? we do not support 4470 in u-boot today, and to my
> > > > knowledge, there is no plans to do it either.
> > >
> > > Used on a custom MMS board that I'm working upon; it is up and running U-Boot
> > > with a TI 750-2173 processor card, including USB EHCI (including HSIC devices).
> > > Please see patch 233501 on my (very initial) 4470/6032 support.
> > >
> > > If interested, I can post the board files as well.
> > there is no u-boot support for 4470
> > $ git branch -v
> > * master c814263 Prepare v2013.04-rc2
> > $ git grep 4470 .|grep OMAP
> > $
> >
> > What is the point in having board files for an SoC that is not supported
> > in upstream?? My suggestion is that you either provide and maintain support for
> > the SoC upstream (considering that inside TI, there seems be to no known
> > motivation to do so) and introduce your board file, OR maintain this patch in
> > the u-boot fork for the vendor board.
>
> Those were patchwork numbers, not git hashes :) He's posted a v1 of
> board support for his platform already.
Aaah.. Thanks for the pointer. http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/233501/
this patch does belong to that series. unfortunately, it is a bit hard
to review the pedigree of an patch when it is not properly sequenced :(.