On Tuesday 30 July 2013 07:53 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:

Hi,

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 07:48:23PM +0530, Sricharan R wrote:

quoted

On Tuesday 30 July 2013 06:40 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:

quoted

Hi,

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 04:55:39PM +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote:

quoted

@@ -379,6 +407,13 @@ IS_OMAP_TYPE(3430, 0x3430)
 # define soc_is_omap543x()		is_omap543x()
 #endif
 
+# if defined(CONFIG_SOC_DRA7XX)
+# undef soc_is_dra7xx
+# undef soc_is_dra75x
+# define soc_is_dra7xx()		is_dra7xx()
+# define soc_is_dra75x()		is_dra75x()

since this platform is DT-only, couldn't we just believe DT-data to be
correct of_machine_is_compatible() ? 2/3 of this patch would be removed.

I patched this for OMAP5 (compile-tested only, no boards available) and
came out with the patch below (still needs to be split):

diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5-uevm.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5-uevm.dts
index 08b7267..b3136e5 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5-uevm.dts
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5-uevm.dts

@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@
 
 / {
 	model = "TI OMAP5 uEVM board";
-	compatible = "ti,omap5-uevm", "ti,omap5";
+	compatible = "ti,omap5-uevm", "ti,omap5432-es2.0", "ti,omap5";
 

 ok, nice and simpler way.
 But would this make different revisions, to appear the same ?

well omap5-uevm is omap5432 es2.0 only, right ? If a new board comes up,
it should be treated as such, then you can pass a different string to
that new board's compatible attribute.

 Yes for OMAP5. I was thinking in general about this approach.
 For example, for OMAP4 we have same board and
 different revisions can be socketed there.

 For OMAP5, this is good.

Regards,
 Sricharan