From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Robert P. J. Day Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:29:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] BeagleBoard: Add a comment explaining the use of "OMAP34XX" macros. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Fri, 20 Nov 2009, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: > "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. ok, i can rephrase that. i was working off of a post by dirk a couple days ago where he seemed to be suggesting that the door was open for some divergence down the road, but maybe i just misread. will fix shortly. rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA Linux Consulting, Training and Kernel Pedantry. Web page: http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday ========================================================================