[PATCH v3] cpufreq: exynos: Fix the compile error

[Tomasz Figa]

On 17.05.2014 01:26, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> On 05/16/14 20:07, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> On 16 May 2014 15:48, Jonghwan Choi<jhbird.choi at samsung.com>  wrote:
>>> Commit 7da83a80 ("ARM: EXYNOS: Migrate Exynos specific macros from
>>> plat to mach") which lands in samsung tree causes build breakage
>>> for cpufreq-exynos like following:
>>>
>>> drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c: In function 'exynos_cpufreq_probe':
>>> drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c:166:2: error: implicit declaration
>>> of function 'soc_is_exynos4210'
>>> [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>>> drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c:168:2: error: implicit declaration
>>> of function 'soc_is_exynos4212'
>>> [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>>> drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c:168:2: error: implicit declaration
>>> of function 'soc_is_exynos4412'
>>> [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>>> drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c:170:2: error: implicit declaration
>>> of function 'soc_is_exynos5250'
>>> [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>>> cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
>>> make[2]: *** [drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.o] Error 1
>>> make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
>>> drivers/cpufreq/exynos4x12-cpufreq.c: In function
>>> 'exynos4x12_set_clkdiv':
>>> drivers/cpufreq/exynos4x12-cpufreq.c:118:2: error: implicit
>>> declaration of function 'soc_is_exynos4212'
>>> [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>>> cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
>>> make[2]: *** [drivers/cpufreq/exynos4x12-cpufreq.o] Error 1
>>> make[1]: *** [drivers/cpufreq] Error 2
>>
>> Blank line here..
>>
>>> This fixes above error with getting SoC information via
>>> of_machine_is_compatible() instead of soc_is_exynosXXXX().
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jonghwan Choi<jhbird.choi at samsung.com>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c     |   20 +++++++++++++++++---
>>>   drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.h     |    8 ++++++++
>>>   drivers/cpufreq/exynos4x12-cpufreq.c |   11 ++++-------
>>>   3 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c
>>> b/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c
>>> index f99cfe2..9aecffef 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c
>>> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
>>>   #include<linux/regulator/consumer.h>
>>>   #include<linux/cpufreq.h>
>>>   #include<linux/platform_device.h>
>>> +#include<linux/of.h>
>>>
>>>   #include<plat/cpu.h>
>>>
>>> @@ -163,11 +164,24 @@ static int exynos_cpufreq_probe(struct
>>> platform_device *pdev)
>>>          if (!exynos_info)
>>>                  return -ENOMEM;
>>>
>>> -       if (soc_is_exynos4210())
>>> +       if (of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos4210")) {
>>> +               exynos_info->type = EXYNOS_SOC_4210;
>>> +       } else if (of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos4212")) {
>>> +               exynos_info->type = EXYNOS_SOC_4212;
>>> +       } else if (of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos4412")) {
>>> +               exynos_info->type = EXYNOS_SOC_4212;
>>
>> 4412 ?
>>
> Yes, I will fix when I apply.
> 
>>> +       } else if (of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos5250")) {
>>> +               exynos_info->type = EXYNOS_SOC_5250;
>>> +       } else {
>>> +               pr_err("%s: Unknown SoC type\n", __func__);
>>> +               return -ENODEV;
>>> +       }
>>> +
>>> +       if (exynos_info->type == EXYNOS_SOC_4210)
>>>                  ret = exynos4210_cpufreq_init(exynos_info);
>>> -       else if (soc_is_exynos4212() || soc_is_exynos4412())
>>> +       else if (exynos_info->type == EXYNOS_SOC_4212 ||
>>> exynos_info->type == EXYNOS_SOC_4412)
>>>                  ret = exynos4x12_cpufreq_init(exynos_info);
>>> -       else if (soc_is_exynos5250())
>>> +       else if (exynos_info->type == EXYNOS_SOC_5250)
>>>                  ret = exynos5250_cpufreq_init(exynos_info);
>>>          else
>>>                  return 0;
>>
>> Do this in the first if/else only..
> 
> Probably, you mean following in above?
> 
>>> -       if (soc_is_exynos4210())
> 
> I've applied this with fixing typo you mentioned just now, if any
> concerns, please kindly let me know.

I think Viresh meant merging the two if/else blocks together, as follows:

	if (of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos4210")) {
		exynos_info->type = EXYNOS_SOC_4210;
		ret = exynos4210_cpufreq_init(exynos_info);
	} else if (of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos4212")) {
		exynos_info->type = EXYNOS_SOC_4212;
		ret = exynos4x12_cpufreq_init(exynos_info);
	} else if (of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos4412")) {
		exynos_info->type = EXYNOS_SOC_4412;
		ret = exynos4x12_cpufreq_init(exynos_info);
	} else if (of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos5250")) {
		exynos_info->type = EXYNOS_SOC_5250;
		ret = exynos5250_cpufreq_init(exynos_info);
	} else {
		pr_err("%s: Unknown SoC type\n", __func__);
		return -ENODEV;
	}

Best regards,
Tomasz