netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] net: dm9000: Allow instantiation using device tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 19 May 2013 15:27:53 +0200
From:	Sylwester Nawrocki <sylvester.nawrocki@...il.com>
To:	Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Francois Romieu <romieu@...zoreil.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net: dm9000: Allow instantiation using device tree

Hi,

On 05/19/2013 01:16 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/davicom-dm9000.txt
> @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
> +Davicom DM9000 Fast Ethernet controller
> +
> +Required properties:
> +- compatible = "davicom,dm9000";
> +- reg : physical addresses and sizes of registers, must contain 2 entries:
> +    first entry : address register,
> +    second entry : address register.

Two address registers ? Shouldn't one of these be "data register" ?

> +Example:
> +
> +	ethernet@...00000 {
> +		compatible = "davicom,dm9000";
> +		reg =<0x18000000 0x2 0x18000004 0x2>;
> +		interrupt-parent =<&gpn>;
> +		interrupts =<7 4>;
> +		local-mac-address = [00 00 de ad be ef];
> +		davicom,no-eeprom;
> +	};

> +static struct dm9000_plat_data *dm9000_parse_dt(struct device *dev)
> +{
> +	struct dm9000_plat_data *pdata;
> +	struct device_node *np = dev->of_node;
> +	const void *mac_addr;
> +
> +	if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF) || !np)
> +		return NULL;

Shouldn't ERR_PTR() value be returned here ?

> +	pdata = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*pdata), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!pdata) {
> +		dev_err(dev, "failed to allocate platform data struct\n");

There is no need for this error log, k*alloc already logs any failures.

> @@ -1373,6 +1402,12 @@ dm9000_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>   	int i;
>   	u32 id_val;
>
> +	if (!pdata) {
> +		pdata = dm9000_parse_dt(&pdev->dev);
> +		if (IS_ERR(pdata))
> +			return PTR_ERR(pdata);
> +	}

Thanks,

Sylwester
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html