[PATCH 10/14] 85xx/mpc85xx_rdb: merge p1020_rdb and p2020_rdb machine entries

[Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov]

On 7/19/11, Kumar Gala <galak at kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
>
> On Jul 19, 2011, at 3:53 AM, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov wrote:
>
>> p1020_rdb and p2020_rdb machine entries bear no in-kernel differencies
>> other than dt compatible strings. Merge them into single machine entry
>> named mpc85xx_rdb
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbaryshkov at gmail.com>
>> ---
>> arch/powerpc/platforms/85xx/mpc85xx_rdb.c |   40
>> ++++++----------------------
>> 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/85xx/mpc85xx_rdb.c
>> b/arch/powerpc/platforms/85xx/mpc85xx_rdb.c
>> index 088f30b..7a3a37b 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/85xx/mpc85xx_rdb.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/85xx/mpc85xx_rdb.c
>> @@ -120,47 +120,25 @@ static int __init mpc85xxrdb_publish_devices(void)
>> {
>> 	return of_platform_bus_probe(NULL, mpc85xxrdb_ids, NULL);
>> }
>> -machine_device_initcall(p2020_rdb, mpc85xxrdb_publish_devices);
>> -machine_device_initcall(p1020_rdb, mpc85xxrdb_publish_devices);
>> +machine_device_initcall(mpc85xx_rdb, mpc85xxrdb_publish_devices);
>>
>> /*
>>  * Called very early, device-tree isn't unflattened
>>  */
>> -static int __init p2020_rdb_probe(void)
>> +static int __init mpc85xx_rdb_probe(void)
>> {
>> 	unsigned long root = of_get_flat_dt_root();
>>
>> -	if (of_flat_dt_is_compatible(root, "fsl,P2020RDB"))
>> +	if (of_flat_dt_is_compatible(root, "fsl,P1020RDB") ||
>> +	    of_flat_dt_is_compatible(root, "fsl,P2020RDB")) {
>> 		return 1;
>> -	return 0;
>> +	} else
>> +		return 0;
>> }
>>
>> -static int __init p1020_rdb_probe(void)
>> -{
>> -	unsigned long root = of_get_flat_dt_root();
>> -
>> -	if (of_flat_dt_is_compatible(root, "fsl,P1020RDB"))
>> -		return 1;
>> -	return 0;
>> -}
>> -
>> -define_machine(p2020_rdb) {
>> -	.name			= "P2020 RDB",
>> -	.probe			= p2020_rdb_probe,
>> -	.setup_arch		= mpc85xx_rdb_setup_arch,
>> -	.init_IRQ		= mpc85xx_rdb_pic_init,
>> -#ifdef CONFIG_PCI
>> -	.pcibios_fixup_bus	= fsl_pcibios_fixup_bus,
>> -#endif
>> -	.get_irq		= mpic_get_irq,
>> -	.restart		= fsl_rstcr_restart,
>> -	.calibrate_decr		= generic_calibrate_decr,
>> -	.progress		= udbg_progress,
>> -};
>> -
>> -define_machine(p1020_rdb) {
>> -	.name			= "P1020 RDB",
>> -	.probe			= p1020_rdb_probe,
>> +define_machine(mpc85xx_rdb) {
>> +	.name			= "MPC85xx RDB",
>
> breaking 'name' this way isn't acceptable.

What would be suitable from your point of view? Does "Px020 RDB" look good?
Or something like it?

>
>> +	.probe			= mpc85xx_rdb_probe,
>> 	.setup_arch		= mpc85xx_rdb_setup_arch,
>> 	.init_IRQ		= mpc85xx_rdb_pic_init,
>> #ifdef CONFIG_PCI
>> --
>> 1.7.2.5
>
>


-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry