Hi Russell,

Thank you for your review.

-----Original Message-----
From: Russell King - ARM Linux [mailto:linux at arm.linux.org.uk]
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 7:28 PM
To: Yang, Wenyou
Cc: Ferre, Nicolas; linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org; linux-
kernel at vger.kernel.org; alexandre.belloni at free-electrons.com;
sylvain.rochet at finsecur.com; peda at axentia.se;
sergei.shtylyov at cogentembedded.com; linux at maxim.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:

quoted

-#ifdef CONFIG_AT91_SLOW_CLOCK
-				/* copy slow_clock handler to SRAM, and call it */
-				memcpy(slow_clock, at91_slow_clock,

at91_slow_clock_sz);

quoted

-#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.

At first, used the fncpy(), but it work not well on the some chip. I will check it again.

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.

I will fix it.

--
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 10.5Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.

Best Regards,
Wenyou Yang