* Keerthy <a0393675@xxxxxx> [150813 02:08]:
>
>
> On Wednesday 12 August 2015 02:07 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> >* Keerthy <a0393675@xxxxxx> [150811 10:57]:
> >>
> >>
> >>On Tuesday 11 August 2015 06:25 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> >>>* Keerthy <j-keerthy@xxxxxx> [150810 02:31]:
> >>>>@@ -371,8 +372,10 @@ IS_OMAP_TYPE(3430, 0x3430)
> >>>> #ifdef CONFIG_SOC_AM43XX
> >>>> # undef soc_is_am43xx
> >>>> # undef soc_is_am437x
> >>>>-# define soc_is_am43xx() is_am43xx()
> >>>>-# define soc_is_am437x() is_am437x()
> >>>>+# undef soc_is_am438x
> >>>>+# define soc_is_am43xx() of_machine_is_compatible("ti,am43")
> >>>>+# define soc_is_am437x() of_machine_is_compatible("ti,am4372")
> >>>>+# define soc_is_am438x() of_machine_is_compatible("ti,am438x")
> >>>> #endif
> >>>
> >>>Hmm didn't I already comment on this change? I don't want to do it
> >>>for one SoC. Please add the SoC detection the old way for am43xx,
> >>>then do another series that changes all the DT only SoCs to use
> >>>of_machine_is_compatible() after it's been properly tested so now
> >>>regressions are caused for the early init code.
> >>
> >>Okay. I misinterpreted your earlier comment. Thanks for clarifying.
> >>I will re-do.
> >
> >Actually, can you please do the following patches first while at it:
> >
> >1. Change dra7 SoC detection to intialize soc_name and soc_rev
> > registers based on the of_machine_is_compatible so we don't
> > do pointless string comparisons with the current code
>
> just another confirmation. So the intent here is to directly do
> of_machine_is_compatible checks instead if soc_is_dra* and try to remove
> soc_is calls from mach-omap2 code right?
Only do of_machine_is_compatible check once to initialize
the necessary variables for soc_is_* to use.
Rgarads,
Tony
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
