Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 22 Sep 2010 11:28:27 -0700 | From | Andres Salomon <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] OLPC: extended board revision detection |
| |
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 17:43:07 +0100 (BST) Daniel Drake <dsd@laptop.org> wrote:
> Add some functions to easily detect which version of the laptop we are > running on, and document the board IDs which are accepted by > olpc_board(). > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Drake <dsd@laptop.org> > --- > arch/x86/include/asm/olpc.h | 37 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 files changed, 37 > insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/olpc.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/olpc.h > index 101229b..9f3219b 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/olpc.h > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/olpc.h > @@ -23,6 +23,21 @@ extern struct olpc_platform_t olpc_platform_info; > * and the minor build number withing 0x000f. Pre-builds have a > minor > * number less than 8, and normal builds start at 8. For example, > 0x0B10 > * is a PreB1, and 0x0C18 is a C1. > + * > + * History of board IDs that you can pass into this function: > + * 0xb1 - XO-1 B1 > + * 0xb2 - XO-1 B2 > + * 0xb3 - XO-1 B3 > + * 0xc1 - XO-1 C1 > + * 0xc2 - XO-1 C2 > + * 0xd0 - XO-1.5 A0 and A1 test > + * 0xd1 - XO-1.5 B1 and B2 test > + * 0xd2 - XO-1.5 B3 test > + * 0xd3 - XO-1.5 C1 initial factory build (12/2009) > + * 0xd4 - XO-1.5 C2 ramp build (02/2010) > + * 0xd3 - XO-1.5 mass production > + * 0xd4 - XO-1.5 > + * 0xd5 - XO-1.5 > */ > > static inline uint32_t olpc_board(uint8_t id) > @@ -40,6 +55,18 @@ static inline int machine_is_olpc(void) > return (olpc_platform_info.flags & OLPC_F_PRESENT) ? 1 : 0; > } > > +static inline int machine_is_olpc_xo_1(void) > +{ > + return machine_is_olpc() && > + olpc_platform_info.boardrev < olpc_board_pre(0xd0); > +} > + > +static inline int machine_is_olpc_xo_1_5(void) > +{ > + return machine_is_olpc() && > + olpc_platform_info.boardrev >= olpc_board_pre(0xd0); > +} > +
These should be returning bools (ditto for the rest of the patches in this series). Otherwise, this looks fine to me.
| |