From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] ARM: DRA7: Add support for soc_is_dra74x() and soc_is_dra72x() varients Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 13:18:30 +0200 Message-ID: <4792826.emf6IohHd6@wuerfel> References: <1398769513-8736-1-git-send-email-rnayak@ti.com> <1398769513-8736-6-git-send-email-rnayak@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1398769513-8736-6-git-send-email-rnayak@ti.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Rajendra Nayak Cc: nm@ti.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, s-anna@ti.com, tony@atomide.com, bcousson@baylibre.com, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 29 April 2014 16:35:13 Rajendra Nayak wrote: > @@ -393,7 +395,12 @@ IS_OMAP_TYPE(3430, 0x3430) > > #if defined(CONFIG_SOC_DRA7XX) > #undef soc_is_dra7xx > +#undef soc_is_dra74x > +#undef soc_is_dra72x > #define soc_is_dra7xx() (of_machine_is_compatible("ti,dra7")) > +#define soc_is_dra74x() (of_machine_is_compatible("ti,dra74")) > +#define soc_is_dra72x() (of_machine_is_compatible("ti,dra72")) > + You shouldn't normally have to define these. Why are they needed? Maybe it's better to wait for a user to show up, and then we can decide whether we actually want to have them this way, or if there is a better solution for the particular use case. Normally, we'd want to make run-time decisions based on properties of the nodes a driver is working on, not the global machine compatible string. Arnd