On 01/07/2014 07:05 AM, Peter De Schrijver wrote:

On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 09:32:24PM +0100, Stephen Warren wrote:

quoted

On 12/24/2013 06:32 AM, Peter De Schrijver wrote:

quoted

Implement fuse driver for Tegra20, Tegra30, Tegra114 and Tegra124.

quoted

quoted

diff --git a/drivers/misc/fuse/tegra/fuse-tegra20.c b/drivers/misc/fuse/tegra/fuse-tegra20.c

quoted

+static int fuse_size;

I don't think that's used.

quoted

+static u32 tegra20_fuse_readl(const unsigned int offset)

...

quoted

+	ret = tegra_apb_readl_using_dma(fuse_phys + FUSE_BEGIN + offset, &val);

Shouldn't this use the generic tegra_apb_readl(), so that it works
irrespective of whether the Tegra20 APB DMA driver is available?

tegra_apb_readl() doesn't work reliably on Tegra20 for reading the fuses.
So if the Tegra20 APB DMA, this driver should also be unavailable.

There's no "depends TEGRA20_APB_DMA" in the Kconfig. Perhaps
ARCH_TEGRA_2x_SOC or FUSE_TEGRA should "select TEGRA20_APB_DMA"?

quoted

quoted

+static int tegra_fuse_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)

...

quoted

+	fuse_randomness();

If this is a driver, and particularly if this could be in a module, is
there any guarantee at all that fuse_randomness() gets called early
enough to be useful?

For a module this might be true yes... Should we disallow this making a
module?

That would simplify things, I expect...