Hi Stefano, On 11/18/2013 03:42 AM, Stefano Babic wrote:
Hi Eric,
On 17/11/2013 18:17, Eric Nelson wrote:
Signed-off-by: Eric Nelson eric.nelson@boundarydevices.com
This patch is new in V3
arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx5/sys_proto.h | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx5/sys_proto.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx5/sys_proto.h index 9949ad1..9dad5fc 100644 --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx5/sys_proto.h +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx5/sys_proto.h @@ -17,6 +17,10 @@
#define is_soc_rev(rev) ((get_cpu_rev() & 0xFF) - rev) u32 get_cpu_rev(void);
+/* returns MXC_CPU_ value */ +#define cpu_type(rev) (((rev) >> 12)&0xff)
There is already a get_cpu_type() for other architectures (OMAP). We do not need to reinvent the wheel this time, and it is correct to add get_cpu_type(void) to sys_proto.h.
This lets also easier to understand the code because it can be directly derived from the User's Manual: shifting 12 bit in your macro is only because this is done in get_cpu_rev(), not because this is the offset in the i.MX6 register.
Okay. I'll re-submit with get_cpu_type(void) implemented imx-common/cpu.c.
I still question the fact that we have two header files for i.MX5x and i.MX6x declaring the returns implemented there.
It seems that we should have a single header for routines implemented there.
Perhaps arch/arm/include/imx-common/cpu.h?
Please advise,
Eric