Hi Frank,

On Tuesday 22 November 2016 07:13 AM, Frank Rowand wrote:

On 11/21/16 08:33, Sekhar Nori wrote:

quoted

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_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