On Tuesday 06 of September 2011 at 12:03:11, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 12:41:07PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:

quoted

On Thursday 01 of September 2011 at 13:18:32, Tomasz Figa wrote:

quoted

Well, now we have three alternatives:
- to leave it as is (i.e. changing platform device names)
- to use cpu_is_* (does it ever exist for S3C64xx or soc_is_s3c64xx is its equivalent?)
- to use soc_is_* 

Waiting for more comments then.

Ping.

Should I keep it as is or rather change it to use soc_is_s3c64xx instead?

I don't know what question you're asking (the questions don't make sense
in terms of the quoted context.)

If you're asking whether you should use a cpu_ prefix instead of a soc_
prefix for identifying s3c64xx, then consider the question.

What is the CPU?

What are S3C64xx / OMAP / PXA310 / SA-11x0 / AT91RM9200?  CPU or SoC ?
What are Cortex A8/A9 / Xscale / StrongARM / ARM920?  CPU or SoC ?

Well, I believe that the context I quoted explains everything, but let me
explain that again:

The patch is about a driver being able to check to what SoC a device belongs,
but there are at least two ways to achieve that.

I can see many drivers using the way I used, i.e. distinct platform device names
for each SoC that has to be differentiated plus a generic one. However, I was
suggested that using cpu_is_*/soc_is_* might be a better approach, while at the
same time I received an opinion that the original method is the preferred one.

Best regards,
Tom