[PATCH v2] arm: omap3: cm-t35: add support for cm-t3730

Igor Grinberg grinberg at compulab.co.il
Mon Jun 13 15:34:49 EDT 2011

On 06/13/11 16:33, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Igor Grinberg <grinberg at compulab.co.il> [110603 06:33]:
>> I'm not sure I understand what are you trying to propose here...
>> If you look once again on the code, there is currently only one if (cpu_is_..) {} else {}
>> statement currently present.
>> (I can remove the "if (cpu_is_omap3630())" - it indeed has no value)
>> Indeed, there will be some other differences...
>> Each time I submit a patch, I try to be as optimal as I can,
>> but again I'm open for suggestions...
>> (though I think it is optimal, e.g. 33 lines for a new running board...)
> What I meant is that maybe you should do the detection first in some
> get_revision function and populate the gpio pins there. Sort of like
> this recent beagle patch:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/859662/

Yes I've seen this patch (actually, I was one of the people who reviewed it).

> That way adding support for other differences will be easier.

OK, now I understand what you mean.
I think currently this is not optimal for cm-t35/3730 and will just complicate
things and introduce more l-o-c.

The situation on beagle board is much more complicated then on cm-t3x.
Beagle has quite a large number of revisions,
while cm-t35 has only one and cm-t3730 has only one.
Moreover, there is no difference in gpios - same numbers are used
for the same functionality.

In particular the only two differences (that s/w cares about) between the boards are:
1) mux of the DSS pins
2) no NAND on cm-t3730 (still not introduced by the patch in subj)

Nevertheless, I will try to come up with something,
so we can see and decide what is a better option.

I will base it on your devel-board branch
(correct me if you want it some other way).


More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list