On 17 June 2013 17:51, Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]> wrote: > On Monday 17 June 2013 16:30:35 Chander Kashyap wrote: >> @@ -330,10 +330,10 @@ void exynos5_restart(char mode, const char *cmd) >> 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 = 0x1; >> + addr = EXYNOS_SWRESET; >> + >> + if (of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos5440")) { >> u32 status; >> np = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, >> "samsung,exynos5440-clock"); >> > > Please try to avoid adding further uses of hardcoded MMIO addresses. I am not adding new hard-coded address. I have simply removed the unnecessary previously existing check. > Thanks. > Can you change that to use the same logic that exynos5440 has? > > Arnd
-- with warm regards, Chander Kashyap -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
