[U-Boot] [PATCH 12/16] ARM: omap4/5: Add device type to CPU string

[Andreas Dannenberg]

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 01:01:43PM -0500, Allred, Daniel wrote:
> On 4/21/2016 12:55 PM, Andreas Dannenberg wrote:
> >On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:26:30AM -0500, Andreas Dannenberg wrote:
> >>On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 06:37:14PM -0500, Daniel Allred wrote:
> >>>Update the CPU string output so that the device
> >>>type is now included as part of the CPU string that
> >>>is printed as the SPL or u-boot comes up. This update
> >>>adds a suffix of the form "-GP" or "-HS" for production
> >>>devices, so that general purpose (GP) and high security
> >>>(HS) can be distiguished. Applies to all OMAP5 variants.
> >>
> >>When I'm building for AM437x HS and running on the device I don't see
> >>that output. It seems like there is something funny going on with
> >>CONFIG_SPL_DISPLAY_PRINT. Even though this definition is activated in
> >>ti_omap4_common.h and ti_omap5_common.h it is not seen by
> >>preloader_console_init() in spl.c, hence the function that prints the
> >>chip-type/rev specifics never gets invoked.
> >
> >So when I run the patches on actual DRA72x HS and DRA74x HS hardware
> >I'll get the device name/type output by SPL as expected so that piece
> >works. However this patch's commit message  implies the same should also
> >work on AM437x HS which it doesn't. I don't have AM437x non-secure
> >hardware at my desk but I looked at some boot logs from our test farms
> >and I also don't see the device ID output by SPL so that may be just how
> >it currently is implemented generally for AM437* and has nothing to do
> >with the patch discussed here.
> This hwinit-common.c is not used by the AM335x/AM437x parts, hence the
> statement "Applies to all OMAP5 variants" in the commit message. The omap4/5
> use in the commit header is because the omap4 cpu.h header file had to be
> updated in order to not break omap4 builds (because those builds DO use this
> hwinit-common.c).

Daniel,
thanks for clarifying/confirming my suspicion. Then I'm okay with this patch.

Regards,

--
Andreas Dannenberg
Texas Instruments Inc