[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bb6ba7c9-ad92-9c54-e1c4-91d2f7d0f5f8@web.de>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 14:14:48 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Dejin Zheng <zhengdejin5@...il.com>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>,
Teddy Wang <teddy.wang@...iconmotion.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] fbdev: sm712fb: fix an issue about iounmap for a wrong
address
> the sfb->fb->screen_base is not save the value get by iounmap() when
> the chip id is 0x720.
I suggest to improve this change description.
How did you determine relevant differences for the mentioned chip model?
> so iounmap() for address sfb->fb->screen_base is not right.
Will another imperative wording become helpful here?
…
> +++ b/drivers/video/fbdev/sm712fb.c
> @@ -1429,6 +1429,8 @@ static int smtc_map_smem(struct smtcfb_info *sfb,
> static void smtc_unmap_smem(struct smtcfb_info *sfb)
> {
> if (sfb && sfb->fb->screen_base) {
> + if (sfb->chip_id == 0x720)
> + sfb->fb->screen_base -= 0x00200000;
> iounmap(sfb->fb->screen_base);
How do you think about to use descriptive identifiers for
the shown constants?
Would you like to clarify any related software analysis approaches?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists