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

[Tom Rini]

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 01:59:48PM -0500, Andreas Dannenberg wrote:
> 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.

Can we do a follow-up that moves this otherwise common code into the
rest of the families?

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20160421/c349e350/attachment.sig>