On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Thomas Abraham <thomas.ab@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Fix the incorrect compatible property value of pin-controller module
> EXYNOS5440 SoC.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Abraham <thomas.ab@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> [kgene.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx: fixed it in gpio together for exynos5440]
> Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: devicetree-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ---
> arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5440.dtsi | 2 +-
> drivers/gpio/gpio-samsung.c | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5440.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5440.dtsi
> index 024269d..25f0fa6 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5440.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5440.dtsi
> @@ -86,7 +86,7 @@
> };
>
> pinctrl {
> - compatible = "samsung,pinctrl-exynos5440";
> + compatible = "samsung,exynos5440-pinctrl";
> reg = <0xE0000 0x1000>;
> interrupt-controller;
> #interrupt-cells = <2>;
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-samsung.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-samsung.c
> index 953737d..cac4b45 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-samsung.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-samsung.c
> @@ -3026,7 +3026,7 @@ static __init int samsung_gpiolib_init(void)
> static const struct of_device_id exynos_pinctrl_ids[] = {
> { .compatible = "samsung,pinctrl-exynos4210", },
> { .compatible = "samsung,pinctrl-exynos4x12", },
> - { .compatible = "samsung,pinctrl-exynos5440", },
> + { .compatible = "samsung,exynos5440-pinctrl", },
Uugh. There's something to be said about consistency, even if it's
possibly not 100% correct. Is it really worth it to have 5440 be the
only one with the "right" naming here?
-Olof
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
