From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: kgene@kernel.org (Kukjin Kim)
Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 11:41:19 +0900
Subject: [PATCH v3 2/2] ARM: EXYNOS: Use of_machine_is_compatible instead
 ofsoc_is_exynos4
In-Reply-To: <1431307646-10779-2-git-send-email-k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
References: <1431307646-10779-1-git-send-email-k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
 <1431307646-10779-2-git-send-email-k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
Message-ID: <55540B4F.6060607@kernel.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

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 <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
> 
> ---
> 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