[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <800171a8-2e2c-2afb-f96d-800a17eaa17a@ti.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 11:55:21 +0530
From: Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>
To: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>
CC: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
arm-soc <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-drm <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
linux-devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Jyri Sarha <jsarha@...com>,
Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: memory: da8xx-ddrctl: new driver
Hi Frank,
On Tuesday 22 November 2016 07:13 AM, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 11/21/16 08:33, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>> On Monday 31 October 2016 08:15 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>> +static int da8xx_ddrctl_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> +{
>>> + const struct da8xx_ddrctl_config_knob *knob;
>>> + const struct da8xx_ddrctl_setting *setting;
>>> + struct device_node *node;
>>> + struct resource *res;
>>> + void __iomem *ddrctl;
>>> + struct device *dev;
>>> + u32 reg;
>>> +
>>> + dev = &pdev->dev;
>>> + node = dev->of_node;
>>> +
>>> + setting = da8xx_ddrctl_get_board_settings();
>>> + if (!setting) {
>>> + dev_err(dev, "no settings for board '%s'\n",
>>> + of_flat_dt_get_machine_name());
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> + }
>>
>> This causes a section mismatch because of_flat_dt_get_machine_name()
>> has an __init annotation. I did not notice that before, sorry.
>>
>> It can be fixed with a patch like below:
>>
>> ---8<---
>> diff --git a/drivers/memory/da8xx-ddrctl.c b/drivers/memory/da8xx-ddrctl.c
>> index a20e7bbbcbe0..9ca5aab3ac54 100644
>> --- a/drivers/memory/da8xx-ddrctl.c
>> +++ b/drivers/memory/da8xx-ddrctl.c
>> @@ -102,6 +102,18 @@ static const struct da8xx_ddrctl_setting *da8xx_ddrctl_get_board_settings(void)
>> return NULL;
>> }
>>
>> +static const char* da8xx_ddrctl_get_machine_name(void)
>> +{
>> + const char *str;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + ret = of_property_read_string(of_root, "model", &str);
>> + if (ret)
>> + ret = of_property_read_string(of_root, "compatible", &str);
>> +
>> + return str;
>> +}
>> +
>> static int da8xx_ddrctl_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> {
>> const struct da8xx_ddrctl_config_knob *knob;
>> @@ -118,7 +130,7 @@ static int da8xx_ddrctl_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> setting = da8xx_ddrctl_get_board_settings();
>> if (!setting) {
>> dev_err(dev, "no settings for board '%s'\n",
>> - of_flat_dt_get_machine_name());
>
> da8xx_ddrctl_get_board_settings() tries to match based on the "compatible"
> property in the root node. The "model" property in the root node has
> nothing to do with the failure to match. So creating and then using
> da8xx_ddrctl_get_machine_name() to potentially report model is not useful.
>
> It should be sufficient to simply report that no compatible matched.
I agree with you on this. Even if model name is printed, you will have
to go back and check the compatible anyway. But I think it will be
useful to print the compatible instead of just reporting that nothing
matched.
Bartosz, if you agree too, could you send a fix patch just printing the
compatible?
Thanks,
Sekhar
Powered by blists - more mailing lists