Pankaj Dubey wrote: > > Hi Kukjin, > Hi, > > > > On 07/07/14 12:50, Pankaj Dubey wrote: > > > As exynos_cpuidle_init and exynos_cpufreq_init function have just one > > > lines of code for registering platform devices. We can move these > > > lines to exynos_dt_machine_init and delete exynos_cpuidle_init and > > > exynos_cpufreq_init function. This will help in reducing lines of code > > > in exynos.c, making it more cleaner. > > > > > > Suggested-by: Tomasz Figa<[email protected]> > > > Signed-off-by: Pankaj Dubey<[email protected]> > > > Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa<[email protected]> > > > --- > > > arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c | 20 ++++---------------- > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c > > > b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c index ff60b4c..47170eb 100644 > > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c > > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c > > > @@ -171,19 +171,6 @@ static struct platform_device exynos_cpuidle = { > > > .id = -1, > > > }; > > > > > > -void __init exynos_cpuidle_init(void) -{ > > > - if (soc_is_exynos5440()) > > > - return; > > > - > > > - platform_device_register(&exynos_cpuidle); > > > -} > > > - > > > -void __init exynos_cpufreq_init(void) -{ > > > - platform_device_register_simple("exynos-cpufreq", -1, NULL, 0); > > > -} > > > - > > > void __iomem *sysram_base_addr; > > > void __iomem *sysram_ns_base_addr; > > > > > > @@ -300,10 +287,11 @@ static void __init exynos_dt_machine_init(void) > > > if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SMP)) > > > exynos_sysram_init(); > > > > > > - if (!of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos5420")) > > > - exynos_cpuidle_init(); > > > + if (!of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos5420") || > > > + !of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos5440")) > > > + platform_device_register(&exynos_cpuidle); > > > > > > - exynos_cpufreq_init(); > > > + platform_device_register_simple("exynos-cpufreq", -1, NULL, 0); > > > > > > of_platform_populate(NULL, of_default_bus_match_table, NULL, > > > NULL); > > > } > > > > This cannot be applied in my tree now.... > > > > May I know what the issue is? As I am able to rebase this patch on today's > kgene/for-next > and could not see any merge conflict. > If you think I need to respin this patch please let me know. >
Pankaj, I found this is based on cpuidle related branch in my tree, BTW this has a dependency with following so please respin your patch once I take the patch in my tree maybe tonight. https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/6/24/286 Thanks, Kukjin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
