[PATCH v4 1/2] soc: samsung: add exynos chipid driver support
arnd at arndb.de
Thu Dec 4 01:12:24 PST 2014
On Thursday 04 December 2014 10:30:36 Pankaj Dubey wrote:
> > On Wednesday 03 December 2014 13:47:37 Pankaj Dubey wrote:
> >> + soc_dev_attr->soc_id = exynos_product_id_to_name(soc_product_id);
> >> +
> >> + soc_dev = soc_device_register(soc_dev_attr);
> >> + if (IS_ERR(soc_dev))
> >> + goto free_rev;
> >> +
> >> + device_create_file(soc_device_to_device(soc_dev), &exynos_product_attr);
> >> + device_create_file(soc_device_to_device(soc_dev),
> >> + &exynos_main_rev_attr);
> >> + device_create_file(soc_device_to_device(soc_dev), &exynos_sub_rev_attr);
> >> +
> > I don't like the idea of having three extra nonstandard properties here,
> > especially when you are not using the machine field for anything useful.
> I did not get you here. Any suggestions how we can use 'machine' field
> more useful way.
For instance you could pass the exynos_product_id_to_name() result to
the machine field instead of the soc_id field, and use the soc_id
for a more fine-grained distinction.
> > Also, all three of these just come from the same register, why expose
> > them all as the machine and revision standard properties.
> Agreed. These properties are basically giving same information but with
> small modification.
> As you said these are getting exposed via standard properties as well,
> so I have no issue to drop them. Just waiting for more review from
> Samsung folks, will take care of this in next version.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel