From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nishanth Menon Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:21:41 -0600 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] BeagleBoard: Add a comment explaining the use of "OMAP34XX" macros. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <782515bb0911191821o7d00440eka4f44ffc18ea7c32@mail.gmail.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de 2009/11/19 M?ns Rullg?rd : > "Robert P. J. Day" writes: > >> Make it clear to a reader that the user of OMAP34XX macros in the >> (OMAP 3530-based) beagle config file is just fine. >> >> Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day >> >> --- >> >> ? i'll let dirk be the judge as to whether this is worth adding, or if >> he'd prefer a different phrasing. >> >> diff --git a/include/configs/omap3_beagle.h b/include/configs/omap3_beagle.h >> index 19a5ec9..9a03587 100644 >> --- a/include/configs/omap3_beagle.h >> +++ b/include/configs/omap3_beagle.h >> @@ -30,6 +30,9 @@ >> >> ?/* >> ? * High Level Configuration Options >> + * >> + * Note that, although the BeagleBoard incorporates an OMAP 3530, >> + * it's currently still valid to use OMAP34XX preprocessor values. >> ? */ >> ?#define CONFIG_ARMCORTEXA8 ? 1 ? ? ? /* This is an ARM V7 CPU core */ >> ?#define CONFIG_OMAP ? ? ? ? ?1 ? ? ? /* in a TI OMAP core */ > > Since 34xx and 35xx are in fact exactly the same silicon, saying it is > "currently" valid seems a bit odd. ?This sort of implies a planned > change. > I agree - I do not think there are any such plans. NAK to the patch. Regards, Nishanth Menon