On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 07:38:17PM -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 05:56:11PM -0500, Andreas Dannenberg wrote:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 04:27:42PM -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 01:59:48PM -0500, Andreas Dannenberg wrote:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 01:01:43PM -0500, Allred, Daniel wrote:
On 4/21/2016 12:55 PM, Andreas Dannenberg wrote:
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:26:30AM -0500, Andreas Dannenberg wrote: >On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 06:37:14PM -0500, Daniel Allred wrote: >>Update the CPU string output so that the device >>type is now included as part of the CPU string that >>is printed as the SPL or u-boot comes up. This update >>adds a suffix of the form "-GP" or "-HS" for production >>devices, so that general purpose (GP) and high security >>(HS) can be distiguished. Applies to all OMAP5 variants. > >When I'm building for AM437x HS and running on the device I don't see >that output. It seems like there is something funny going on with >CONFIG_SPL_DISPLAY_PRINT. Even though this definition is activated in >ti_omap4_common.h and ti_omap5_common.h it is not seen by >preloader_console_init() in spl.c, hence the function that prints the >chip-type/rev specifics never gets invoked.
So when I run the patches on actual DRA72x HS and DRA74x HS hardware I'll get the device name/type output by SPL as expected so that piece works. However this patch's commit message implies the same should also work on AM437x HS which it doesn't. I don't have AM437x non-secure hardware at my desk but I looked at some boot logs from our test farms and I also don't see the device ID output by SPL so that may be just how it currently is implemented generally for AM437* and has nothing to do with the patch discussed here.
This hwinit-common.c is not used by the AM335x/AM437x parts, hence the statement "Applies to all OMAP5 variants" in the commit message. The omap4/5 use in the commit header is because the omap4 cpu.h header file had to be updated in order to not break omap4 builds (because those builds DO use this hwinit-common.c).
Daniel, thanks for clarifying/confirming my suspicion. Then I'm okay with this patch.
Can we do a follow-up that moves this otherwise common code into the rest of the families?
Hi Tom, just to make sure I understand your suggestion correctly, this is about a behind the scenes optimization to remove the code duplication we currently have in .../asm/arch-omap(4|5)/cpu.h, rather than making the CPU string output as part of SPL work on all of our (TI) platforms, yes?
I want as much consolidate and consistency of output as is both feasible and practical.
Agreed. Consistency and consolidation would make sense here. I just added an item to our internal issue tracker to capture this suggestion but I can't yet comment on when we'll get to it.
Thanks and Regards, Andreas