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@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> ---
> 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
--
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
