[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150129112800.GV26493@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 11:28:00 +0000
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Wenyou Yang <wenyou.yang@...el.com>
Cc: nicolas.ferre@...el.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com,
sylvain.rochet@...secur.com, peda@...ntia.se,
sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com, linux@...im.org.za
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 05/13] pm: at91: move the copying the sram function to
the sram initializationi phase
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 09:43:16AM +0800, Wenyou Yang wrote:
> -#ifdef CONFIG_AT91_SLOW_CLOCK
> - /* copy slow_clock handler to SRAM, and call it */
> - memcpy(slow_clock, at91_slow_clock, at91_slow_clock_sz);
> -#endif
> slow_clock(at91_pmc_base, at91_ramc_base[0],
> at91_ramc_base[1],
> at91_pm_data.memctrl);
> @@ -272,6 +268,9 @@ static void __init at91_pm_sram_init(void)
> sram_pbase = gen_pool_virt_to_phys(sram_pool, sram_base);
> slow_clock = __arm_ioremap_exec(sram_pbase, at91_slow_clock_sz, false);
>
> + /* Copy the slow_clock handler to SRAM */
> + memcpy(slow_clock, at91_slow_clock, at91_slow_clock_sz);
> +
Why is this code not using the fncpy() support for copying functions.
Why is it not checking the return code from __arm_ioremap_exec() or
gen_pool_virt_to_phys() for failure?
This looks like quite a massive review failure when this code was
originally merged. It needs fixing.
--
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 10.5Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.
--
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