[PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: memory: da8xx-ddrctl: new driver
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <hidden>
Date: 2016-11-21 16:48:32
Also in:
dri-devel, linux-devicetree, lkml
2016-11-21 17:33 GMT+01:00 Sekhar Nori [off-list ref]:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
On Monday 31 October 2016 08:15 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:quoted
+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_machine_name()); return -EINVAL; } ---8<---A similar fix is required for the other driver in this series (patch 2/5). I need some advise on whether I should introduce a common function to get the machine name post kernel boot-up (I cannot see an existing one). If yes, any advise on which file it should go into?
Hi Sekhar, thanks for spotting that. I think we should introduce this function right away, rather than having two static functions doing the same thing. If you don't mind, I'll try to find a good spot for it and send a follow-up series fixing the issue. Best regards, Bartosz Golaszewski