[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53B460B4.9010200@ti.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 14:42:44 -0500
From: Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>
To: Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>
CC: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Josh Cartwright <joshc@...eaurora.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn@...o.se>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 05/15] hwspinlock/omap: add support for dt nodes
Hi Ohad,
On 07/01/2014 07:48 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> Hi Suman,
>
> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 3:34 AM, Suman Anna <s-anna@...com> wrote:
>> static int omap_hwspinlock_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> {
>> - struct hwspinlock_pdata *pdata = pdev->dev.platform_data;
>> + struct device_node *node = pdev->dev.of_node;
>> struct hwspinlock_device *bank;
>> struct hwspinlock *hwlock;
>> struct resource *res;
>> void __iomem *io_base;
>> int num_locks, i, ret;
>> + int base_id = 0;
>
> We shouldn't implicitly assume base_id is zero: let's explicitly
> protect against potential subsequent invocations of
> omap_hwspinlock_probe.
>
Yeah, I did this since we only had 1 instance, and used the same value
as used in the non-DT legacy code. Once I fold back Patch 8 that adds
the hwlock-base-id property, this will be assigned by reading that property.
regards
Suman
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists