On Mon, 2015-01-05 at 14:44 +0530, Pankaj Dubey wrote:
> Commit id: 2e94ac42898f84d76e3c21dd91bc is not taking care
> of mapping of exynos5440 PMU register which will result in kernel panic
> on exynos5440.
>
> As exynos5440 DTS does not have PMU node, and also we are skipping
> exynos_pm_init in case of exynos5440, let's avoid mapping of exynos5440 PMU.
> Reported-by: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Pankaj Dubey <pankaj.dubey@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
> index c13d083..1891b8c 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
> @@ -208,7 +208,8 @@ static void __init exynos_init_irq(void)
> * DT is not unflatten so we can't use DT APIs before
> * init_irq
> */
> - exynos_map_pmu();
> + if (!of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos5440"))
> + exynos_map_pmu();
> }
>
> static void __init exynos_dt_machine_init(void)
Why the blacklist approach rather then simply making exynos_map_pmu exit
rather then panicing if it couldn't find a pmu node in the dts?
--
Sjoerd Simons <sjoerd.simons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Collabora Ltd.
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
