From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 18:02:51 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 5/5] ARM: sunxi: Remove sun4i and sun7i machine definitions
In-Reply-To: <1398265476-29373-6-git-send-email-maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
References: <1398265476-29373-1-git-send-email-maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
 <1398265476-29373-6-git-send-email-maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
Message-ID: <1401022774.yKcHJAmPtb@wuerfel>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Wednesday 23 April 2014 17:04:36 Maxime Ripard wrote:
>  
> -static void __init sunxi_dt_init(void)
> -{
> -       of_platform_populate(NULL, of_default_bus_match_table, NULL, NULL);
> -}
> -
> -static const char * const sunxi_board_dt_compat[] = {
> -       "allwinner,sun4i-a10",
> -       "allwinner,sun5i-a10s",
> -       "allwinner,sun5i-a13",
> -       NULL,
> -};
> -
> -DT_MACHINE_START(SUNXI_DT, "Allwinner A1X (Device Tree)")
> -       .init_machine   = sunxi_dt_init,
> -       .dt_compat      = sunxi_board_dt_compat,
> -MACHINE_END
> -
>  static const char * const sun6i_board_dt_compat[] = {
>         "allwinner,sun6i-a31",
>         NULL,

I'd like to hear more opinions on this. We could either rely
on the generic code, or we could keep the entry with just
the .dt_compat line and the name, so /proc/cpuinfo contains
a meaningful platform name.

Either approach works for me, but I think we should do this
consistent across platforms. Olof, do you have an opinion?

	Arnd