[U-Boot] [PATCH V2 1/5] ARM: OMAP5: Add silicon id support for ES2.0 revision.

[R Sricharan]

On Tuesday 05 February 2013 01:11 AM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 19:59-20130204, R Sricharan wrote:
>> Adding the CPU detection suport for OMAP5430 and
>> OMAP5432 ES2.0 SOCs.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: R Sricharan <r.sricharan at ti.com>
>> ---
>>   arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap5/hwinit.c      |   13 +++++++++++--
>>   arch/arm/include/asm/arch-omap5/omap.h |    2 ++
>>   arch/arm/include/asm/armv7.h           |    1 +
>>   arch/arm/include/asm/omap_common.h     |    2 ++
>>   4 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap5/hwinit.c b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap5/hwinit.c
>> index dfc0e44..0d8c95d 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap5/hwinit.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap5/hwinit.c
>> @@ -216,8 +216,17 @@ void init_omap_revision(void)
>>   			break;
>>   		}
>>   		break;
>> -	default:
>> -		*omap_si_rev = OMAP5430_SILICON_ID_INVALID;
>> +	case MIDR_CORTEX_A15_R2P2:
>> +		switch (readl(CONTROL_ID_CODE)) {
>> +		case OMAP5430_CONTROL_ID_CODE_ES2_0:
>> +			*omap_si_rev = OMAP5430_ES2_0;
>> +			break;
>> +		case OMAP5432_CONTROL_ID_CODE_ES2_0:
>> +			*omap_si_rev = OMAP5432_ES2_0;
>> +			break;
>> +		default:
>> +			*omap_si_rev = OMAP5430_SILICON_ID_INVALID;
>> +		}
>
> A first few samples of both ES1.0 and ES2.0 (in the few 10s of samples) came with wrong efuse
> ID fused in, why would we want to make it a standard to check ARMsilicon
> revision *and then* cross verify against control fuse verification, *and
> then* give up saying we dont support it?
>
> Looks like an over check for me -> IMHO, we should drop the MIDR checks
> entirely.
  In the same context, for some boards in past even in the actual samples
  the CONTROL ID code was reading the older revision. So in those
  cases ARM revision will help to differentiate them.

  But then it should have been in the opposite way, like reading the 
CONTROL_CODE first and then reading the ARM revision if required in 
those cases where is it broken. I will change this logic here.

Regards,
  Sricharan