On 17 June 2013 17:51, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Monday 17 June 2013 16:30:35 Chander Kashyap wrote:
>> @@ -330,10 +330,10 @@ void exynos5_restart(char mode, const char *cmd)
>> u32 val;
>> void __iomem *addr;
>>
>> - if (of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos5250")) {
>> - val = 0x1;
>> - addr = EXYNOS_SWRESET;
>> - } else if (of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos5440")) {
>> + val = 0x1;
>> + addr = EXYNOS_SWRESET;
>> +
>> + if (of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos5440")) {
>> u32 status;
>> np = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "samsung,exynos5440-clock");
>>
>
> Please try to avoid adding further uses of hardcoded MMIO addresses.
I am not adding new hard-coded address. I have simply removed the
unnecessary previously existing check.
>
Thanks.
> Can you change that to use the same logic that exynos5440 has?
>
> Arnd
--
with warm regards,
Chander Kashyap
--
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
