Tomasz Figa wrote: > > Hi Kgene, > Hi, [...]
> > void exynos5_restart(char mode, const char *cmd) > > { > > - __raw_writel(0x1, EXYNOS_SWRESET); > > + 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 = (0x10 << 20) | (0x1 << 16); > > + addr = EXYNOS5440_SWRESET; > > + } else { > > + pr_err("%s: cannot support non-DT\n", __func__); > > + return; > > + } > > Why soc_is_XXX isn't used here? It should be faster and more correct than > of_machine_is_compatible. > Well...let me check again. > I can imagine the same board available with two different SoCs, for which > of_machine_is_compatible wouldn't work. > I don't think so. Basically, the restart() depends on SoC not board in addition, each board is supposed to have its own SoC not different SoCs. [...] > > -static char const *exynos5250_dt_compat[] __initdata = { > > +static char const *exynos5_dt_compat[] __initdata = { > > "samsung,exynos5250", > > + "samsung,exynos5440", > > NULL > > }; > > Something doesn't seem right here. How do you distinguish between > MACH_EXYNOS5_DT and MACH_EXYNOS5440_DT if both have the same compatible > matches? > I updated to support MACH_EXYNOS5440_DT with MACH_EXYNOS5_DT. > Those machines doesn't seem to share much definitions, so maybe a separate > mach-exynos5440-dt.c file would be a better approach? > See my updated patch. > > @@ -96,11 +100,23 @@ DT_MACHINE_START(EXYNOS5_DT, "SAMSUNG EXYNOS5 > > (Flattened Device Tree)") /* Maintainer: Kukjin Kim > > <kgene....@samsung.com> */ > > .init_irq = exynos5_init_irq, > > .smp = smp_ops(exynos_smp_ops), > > - .map_io = exynos5250_dt_map_io, > > + .map_io = exynos5_dt_map_io, > > .handle_irq = gic_handle_irq, > > - .init_machine = exynos5250_dt_machine_init, > > + .init_machine = exynos5_dt_machine_init, > > .init_late = exynos_init_late, > > .timer = &exynos4_timer, > > - .dt_compat = exynos5250_dt_compat, > > + .dt_compat = exynos5_dt_compat, > > + .restart = exynos5_restart, > > +MACHINE_END > > + > > +DT_MACHINE_START(EXYNOS5440_DT, "SAMSUNG EXYNOS5440 (Flattened Device > > Tree)") + /* Maintainer: Kukjin Kim <kgene....@samsung.com> */ > > + .init_irq = exynos5_init_irq, > > + .smp = smp_ops(exynos_smp_ops), > > + .map_io = exynos5_dt_map_io, > > + .handle_irq = gic_handle_irq, > > + .init_machine = exynos5_dt_machine_init, > > + .timer = &exynos5_timer, > > + .dt_compat = exynos5_dt_compat, > > .restart = exynos5_restart, > > Since restarts for both differ, why not to add separate exynos5440 restart > and use it here? > As I said above, I don't think so. [...] > > @@ -487,6 +489,9 @@ static void __init exynos4_timer_init(void) > > exynos4x12_clk_init(); > > #endif > > > > + if (of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos5440")) > > + arch_timer_of_register(); > > + > > Why exynos4_timer_init is being touched here, if exynos5_timer_init is > being added? > > I would rather keep exynos4_timer (which is used for all Exynos4 SoCs > and for Exynos5250) as is and define new exynos5250_timer if it needs > completely different initialization... > See updated patch. [...] Thanks. Best regards, Kgene. -- Kukjin Kim <kgene....@samsung.com>, Senior Engineer, SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html