2015-05-14 11:41 GMT+09:00 Kukjin Kim <kgene@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> 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.
It could be quite significant change and each path checking for
compatibility with exynos4 should be tested. There is no board DTS for
Exynos4415 so I am not quite convinced that we should care about it.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
--
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
