linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] ARM: OMAP2+: SoC name and revision unification

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20130206191923.GE25185@atomide.com>
Date:	Wed, 6 Feb 2013 11:19:23 -0800
From:	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
To:	Ruslan Bilovol <ruslan.bilovol@...com>
Cc:	linux@....linux.org.uk, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] ARM: OMAP2+: SoC name and revision unification

Hi,

* Ruslan Bilovol <ruslan.bilovol@...com> [130206 11:03]:
> This is a long story where for each new generation of
> OMAP we used different approaches for creating
> strings for SoCs names and revisions that this patch
> fixes. It makes future exporting of this information
> to SoC infrastructure easier.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ruslan Bilovol <ruslan.bilovol@...com>
> ---
>  arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c |   89 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
>  1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
> index 8a68f1e..b16a432 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
> @@ -31,8 +31,11 @@
>  #define OMAP4_SILICON_TYPE_STANDARD		0x01
>  #define OMAP4_SILICON_TYPE_PERFORMANCE		0x02
>  
> +#define OMAP_SOC_MAX_NAME_LENGTH		16
> +
>  static unsigned int omap_revision;
> -static const char *cpu_rev;
> +static char soc_name[OMAP_SOC_MAX_NAME_LENGTH];
> +static char soc_rev[OMAP_SOC_MAX_NAME_LENGTH];
>  u32 omap_features;
>  
>  unsigned int omap_rev(void)

Sorry I was not clear earlier with what I meant, but if
you remove static const char *cpu_rev here and use
soc_name and soc_rev here..

> @@ -181,8 +187,7 @@ void __init omap2xxx_check_revision(void)
>  
>  static void __init omap3_cpuinfo(void)
>  {
> -	const char *cpu_name;
> -
> +	const char *omap3_soc_name;
>  	/*
>  	 * OMAP3430 and OMAP3530 are assumed to be same.
>  	 *

..then no need to replace cpu_name with omap3_soc_name here?

> @@ -191,28 +196,30 @@ static void __init omap3_cpuinfo(void)
>  	 * and CPU class bits.
>  	 */
>  	if (cpu_is_omap3630()) {
> -		cpu_name = "OMAP3630";
> +		omap3_soc_name = "OMAP3630";
>  	} else if (soc_is_am35xx()) {
> -		cpu_name = (omap3_has_sgx()) ? "AM3517" : "AM3505";
> +		omap3_soc_name = (omap3_has_sgx()) ? "AM3517" : "AM3505";
>  	} else if (cpu_is_ti816x()) {
> -		cpu_name = "TI816X";
> +		omap3_soc_name = "TI816X";
>  	} else if (soc_is_am335x()) {
> -		cpu_name =  "AM335X";
> +		omap3_soc_name =  "AM335X";
...

Or here?

>  void __init omap3xxx_check_revision(void)
>  {
> +	const char *omap3_soc_rev;
>  	u32 cpuid, idcode;
>  	u16 hawkeye;
>  	u8 rev;

Then here if you just make it a local cpu_rev..

> @@ -303,7 +311,7 @@ void __init omap3xxx_check_revision(void)
>  	cpuid = read_cpuid(CPUID_ID);
>  	if ((((cpuid >> 4) & 0xfff) == 0xc08) && ((cpuid & 0xf) == 0x0)) {
>  		omap_revision = OMAP3430_REV_ES1_0;
> -		cpu_rev = "1.0";
> +		omap3_soc_rev = "ES1.0";
>  		return;
>  	}
>  
> @@ -324,26 +332,26 @@ void __init omap3xxx_check_revision(void)
>  		case 0: /* Take care of early samples */
>  		case 1:
>  			omap_revision = OMAP3430_REV_ES2_0;
> -			cpu_rev = "2.0";
> +			omap3_soc_rev = "ES2.0";
>  			break;
>  		case 2:
>  			omap_revision = OMAP3430_REV_ES2_1;
> -			cpu_rev = "2.1";
> +			omap3_soc_rev = "ES2.1";
>  			break;
>  		case 3:
>  			omap_revision = OMAP3430_REV_ES3_0;
> -			cpu_rev = "3.0";
> +			omap3_soc_rev = "ES3.0";
>  			break;
>  		case 4:
>  			omap_revision = OMAP3430_REV_ES3_1;
> -			cpu_rev = "3.1";
> +			omap3_soc_rev = "ES3.1";
>  			break;

..no need to replace cpu_rev with omap3_soc_rev all over the
place?

Regards,

Tony
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/