lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRE: [RFC][PATCH 03/10] arm: mxc: changes to common plat-mxc codeto add support for i.MX5
Date
From
Sasha, Amit,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sascha Hauer [mailto:s.hauer@pengutronix.de]
> Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 4:59 AM
> To: Amit Kucheria
> Cc: Herring Robert-RA7055; List Linux Kernel;
> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org;
> valentin.longchamp@epfl.ch; daniel@caiaq.de;
> grant.likely@secretlab.ca; Nguyen Dinh-R00091
> Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 03/10] arm: mxc: changes to common
> plat-mxc codeto add support for i.MX5
>
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 12:31:02PM +0200, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> > Some comments below:
> >
> > On 09 Dec 04, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 08:12:58PM -0700, Herring
> Robert-RA7055 wrote:
> > > > Amit,
> > > >
> > > > I would suggest you refactor the timer code into
> version 1 and version 2
> > > > either as 2 separate files or with a timer_is_v2()
> function rather than
> > > > the mess of cpu_is_X macros it currently has.
> Essentially there are 2
> > > > versions of the timer hardware. Version 1 is found on
> MX1/MXL and MX21.
> > > > Version 2 is found on MX25, MX27, MX31, MX35, MX37,
> MX51, and future
> > > > parts. I will send you what we have done in our tree.
> > > Like this:
> > >
> > >
> > > commit ed6bbc59e3f6b33b48a0d5ac053220cd318ceee7
> > > Author: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
> > > Date: Tue Nov 17 16:31:13 2009 +0100
> > >
> > > mxc timer: Add mx51 support
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-mxc/time.c b/arch/arm/plat-mxc/time.c
> > > index 844567e..0c45509 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm/plat-mxc/time.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm/plat-mxc/time.c
> > > @@ -57,6 +57,9 @@
> > > #define MX3_TCN 0x24
> > > #define MX3_TCMP 0x10
> > >
> > > +#define timer_is_v1() (cpu_is_mx1() || cpu_is_mx27())
> > ^^^^
> > Shouldn't this be
> mx21 according to
> > Rob's comment?
>
> i.MX1, i.MX21 and i.MX27 are identical, at least that's what the code
> shows, so it should be:
>
> #define timer_is_v1() (cpu_is_mx1() || cpu_is_mx21() ||
> cpu_is_mx27())
> #define timer_is_v2() (cpu_is_mx3() || cpu_is_mx25() ||
> cpu_is_mx51() || cpu_is_mxc91231())

Sorry, my mistake. Sasha is correct that MX27 is v1 and MX25 is v2.

timer_is_v1 is just !timer_is_v2, so really only one is needed. I would
define it like this to avoid having to change the timer code again for
any new chips:

#define timer_is_v2() (!(cpu_is_mx1() || cpu_is_mx21() ||
cpu_is_mx27()))

Regards,
Rob



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-07 18:21    [W:0.057 / U:7.024 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site