[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <55DBCA84.2070506@samsung.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 10:53:08 +0900
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>
To: Pankaj Dubey <pankaj.dubey@...sung.com>,
linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc: kgene@...nel.org, heiko@...ech.de, thomas.ab@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ARM: EXYNOS: Remove SROM related register settings
from mach-exynos
On 24.08.2015 17:02, Pankaj Dubey wrote:
> As now we have dedicated driver for SROM controller, it will take care
> of saving register banks during S2R so we can safely remove these
> settings from mach-exynos.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pankaj Dubey <pankaj.dubey@...sung.com>
> ---
> arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig | 2 ++
> arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h | 2 --
> arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c | 17 ---------
> arch/arm/mach-exynos/include/mach/map.h | 3 --
> arch/arm/mach-exynos/regs-srom.h | 53 ----------------------------
> arch/arm/mach-exynos/suspend.c | 20 ++---------
> arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/map-s5p.h | 1 -
> 7 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 94 deletions(-)
> delete mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-exynos/regs-srom.h
The order of patches looks wrong. Is this fully bisectable? You are
removing here support for SROM but DTS bindings are not added yet.
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig
> index 3a10f1a..7c917ef 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig
> @@ -27,6 +27,8 @@ menuconfig ARCH_EXYNOS
> select SRAM
> select THERMAL
> select MFD_SYSCON
> + select SOC_SAMSUNG
> + select EXYNOS_SROM
> help
> Support for SAMSUNG EXYNOS SoCs (EXYNOS4/5)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h
> index 1534925..1c04741 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h
> @@ -108,8 +108,6 @@ IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(exynos5800, EXYNOS5800_SOC_ID, EXYNOS5_SOC_MASK)
>
> #define soc_is_exynos4() (soc_is_exynos4210() || soc_is_exynos4212() || \
> soc_is_exynos4412())
> -#define soc_is_exynos5() (soc_is_exynos5250() || soc_is_exynos5410() || \
> - soc_is_exynos5420() || soc_is_exynos5800())
That wasn't here in v1. I see that it is not used any more and
of_machine_is_compatible is preferred but I would prefer to leave it. In
certain cases you cannot use of_machine_is_compatible (e.g. in
platform_do_lowpower).
Rest looks good.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists