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 <[email protected]> > > --- > 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-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
