From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux)
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 20:11:34 +0100
Subject: READ THIS: the next mach-types update
In-Reply-To: <201109151726.02445.arnd@arndb.de>
References: <20110915102528.GI6267@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
	<201109151726.02445.arnd@arndb.de>
Message-ID: <20110915191134.GL6267@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 05:26:02PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 15 September 2011, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > Moreover, entries older than 12 months which have not been merged will
> > be removed.  It is not possible to automatically check for machine_is_xxx()
> > usages as these could conflict with other architectures, and I'm
> > certainly NOT checking for them by hand (I estimate that'd take a
> > significant amount of manual effort to do.)  What that means is that it
> > is important to get the core platform support in first before any
> > drivers which may make use of this.
> 
> Hi Russell,
> 
> I've just tried checking the machine_is_xxx() values in the kernel for
> the list you posted and found just two that are actually being used:
> 
> arch/arm/mach-orion5x/ts209-setup.c:    if (machine_is_ts_x09())
> arch/arm/mach-kirkwood/sheevaplug-setup.c:      if (machine_is_sheeva_esata())
> 
> Would it be possible to just fix these to use the correct form instead,
> along with the respective mach-types change?

That would of course be the preferred way, but I need to know which
way they're supposed to be - the current disagreement in the names
doesn't suggest which is the right one.