| Message ID | 1431307646-10779-2-git-send-email-k.kozlowski@samsung.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 05/11/15 10:27, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > of_machine_is_compatible() seems to be preferred over soc_is_exynos4(). > > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com> > > --- > Changes since v2: > 1. New patch, requested by Kukjin Kim. > --- > arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c > index c3bfbba3006d..5917a30eee33 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c > @@ -179,7 +179,7 @@ static void __init exynos_init_io(void) > */ > void exynos_set_delayed_reset_assertion(bool enable) > { > - if (soc_is_exynos4()) { > + if (of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos4")) { > unsigned int tmp, core_id; > > for (core_id = 0; core_id < num_possible_cpus(); core_id++) { Maybe we need to change the compatible for exynos4415.dtsi? because no exynos4 in the compatible...Applied, anyway. Thanks, Kukjin
2015-05-14 11:41 GMT+09:00 Kukjin Kim <kgene@kernel.org>: > On 05/11/15 10:27, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> of_machine_is_compatible() seems to be preferred over soc_is_exynos4(). >> >> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com> >> >> --- >> Changes since v2: >> 1. New patch, requested by Kukjin Kim. >> --- >> arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c >> index c3bfbba3006d..5917a30eee33 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c >> @@ -179,7 +179,7 @@ static void __init exynos_init_io(void) >> */ >> void exynos_set_delayed_reset_assertion(bool enable) >> { >> - if (soc_is_exynos4()) { >> + if (of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos4")) { >> unsigned int tmp, core_id; >> >> for (core_id = 0; core_id < num_possible_cpus(); core_id++) { > > Maybe we need to change the compatible for exynos4415.dtsi? because no > exynos4 in the compatible...Applied, anyway. It could be quite significant change and each path checking for compatibility with exynos4 should be tested. There is no board DTS for Exynos4415 so I am not quite convinced that we should care about it. Best regards, Krzysztof
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c index c3bfbba3006d..5917a30eee33 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c @@ -179,7 +179,7 @@ static void __init exynos_init_io(void) */ void exynos_set_delayed_reset_assertion(bool enable) { - if (soc_is_exynos4()) { + if (of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos4")) { unsigned int tmp, core_id; for (core_id = 0; core_id < num_possible_cpus(); core_id++) {
of_machine_is_compatible() seems to be preferred over soc_is_exynos4(). Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com> --- Changes since v2: 1. New patch, requested by Kukjin Kim. --- arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)