comparison src/cs/layer1/tpu_drivers/source0/tpudrv12.h @ 600:8f50b202e81f

board preprocessor conditionals: prep for more FC hw in the future This change eliminates the CONFIG_TARGET_FCDEV3B preprocessor symbol and all preprocessor conditionals throughout the code base that tested for it, replacing them with CONFIG_TARGET_FCFAM or CONFIG_TARGET_FCMODEM. These new symbols are specified as follows: CONFIG_TARGET_FCFAM is intended to cover all hardware designs created by Mother Mychaela under the FreeCalypso trademark. This family will include modem products (repackagings of the FCDEV3B, possibly with RFFE or even RF transceiver changes), and also my desired FreeCalypso handset product. CONFIG_TARGET_FCMODEM is intended to cover all FreeCalypso modem products (which will be firmware-compatible with the FCDEV3B if they use TI Rita transceiver, or will require a different fw build if we switch to one of Silabs Aero transceivers), but not the handset product. Right now this CONFIG_TARGET_FCMODEM preprocessor symbol is used to conditionalize everything dealing with MCSI. At the present moment the future of FC hardware evolution is still unknown: it is not known whether we will ever have any beyond-FCDEV3B hardware at all (contingent on uncertain funding), and if we do produce further FC hardware designs, it is not known whether they will retain the same FIC modem core (triband), if we are going to have a quadband design that still retains the classic Rita transceiver, or if we are going to switch to Silabs Aero II or some other transceiver. If we produce a quadband modem that still uses Rita, it will run exactly the same fw as the FCDEV3B thanks to the way we define TSPACT signals for the RF_FAM=12 && CONFIG_TARGET_FCFAM combination, and the current fcdev3b build target will be renamed to fcmodem. OTOH, if that putative quadband modem will be Aero-based, then it will require a different fw build target, the fcdev3b target will stay as it is, and the two targets will both define CONFIG_TARGET_FCFAM and CONFIG_TARGET_FCMODEM, but will have different RF_FAM numbers. But no matter which way we are going to evolve, it is not right to have conditionals on CONFIG_TARGET_FCDEV3B in places like ACI, and the present change clears the way for future evolution.
author Mychaela Falconia <falcon@freecalypso.org>
date Mon, 01 Apr 2019 01:05:24 +0000
parents d380b62e1019
children 92dbfa906f66
comparison
equal deleted inserted replaced
599:4626d7a955de 600:8f50b202e81f
272 #define RU_1900 ( PA_OFF | FEM_PINS ^ 0 ) 272 #define RU_1900 ( PA_OFF | FEM_PINS ^ 0 )
273 #define RD_1900 ( PA_OFF | FEM_PINS ^ 0 ) 273 #define RD_1900 ( PA_OFF | FEM_PINS ^ 0 )
274 #define TU_1900 ( PA_HI_BAND | FEM_PINS ^ FEM_8 ) 274 #define TU_1900 ( PA_HI_BAND | FEM_PINS ^ FEM_8 )
275 #define TD_1900 ( PA_OFF | FEM_PINS ^ 0 ) 275 #define TD_1900 ( PA_OFF | FEM_PINS ^ 0 )
276 276
277 #elif defined(CONFIG_TARGET_GTAMODEM) || defined(CONFIG_TARGET_FCDEV3B) 277 #elif defined(CONFIG_TARGET_GTAMODEM)
278 278
279 // Openmoko's triband configuration is a bastardized version 279 // Openmoko's triband configuration is a bastardized version
280 // of TI's quadband one from Leonardo/E-Sample 280 // of TI's quadband one from Leonardo/E-Sample
281 281
282 #define FEM_7 BIT_2 // act2 282 #define FEM_7 BIT_2 // act2
320 320
321 /* 321 /*
322 * In our FreeCalypso hw family, we would like to be able to use 322 * In our FreeCalypso hw family, we would like to be able to use
323 * both triband and quadband RFFEs. Our current FCDEV3B is triband, 323 * both triband and quadband RFFEs. Our current FCDEV3B is triband,
324 * copied from Openmoko, and the same is expected to be the case for 324 * copied from Openmoko, and the same is expected to be the case for
325 * future low-cost designs, but if someone pays for a new RF layout, 325 * future low-budget designs, but if someone pays for a new RF layout,
326 * we can use a quadband RFFE instead. If we ever have two different 326 * we can use a quadband RFFE instead. If we ever have two different
327 * hw platforms or variants that differ in the RFFE but are otherwise 327 * hw platforms or variants that differ in the RFFE but are otherwise
328 * firmware-compatible, we would like to have the same fw build 328 * firmware-compatible, we would like to have the same fw build
329 * work with both triband and quadband RFFEs. How is it possible? 329 * work with both triband and quadband RFFEs. How is it possible?
330 * The trick is that we define our set of TSPACT RFFE control signals 330 * The trick is that we define our set of TSPACT RFFE control signals