Hi Philipp,

Am Dienstag, 25. Juni 2013, 11:04:34 schrieb Philipp Zabel:

Hi Heiko,

Am Dienstag, den 25.06.2013, 10:46 +0200 schrieb Heiko Stübner:

quoted

The pool is created thru devm_gen_pool_create, so the call to
gen_pool_destroy is not necessary.
Instead the sram-clock must be turned off again if it exists.

Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
---

 drivers/misc/sram.c |    3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/misc/sram.c b/drivers/misc/sram.c
index d87cc91..afe66571 100644
--- a/drivers/misc/sram.c
+++ b/drivers/misc/sram.c

@@ -68,7 +68,8 @@ static int sram_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)

 	ret = gen_pool_add_virt(sram->pool, (unsigned long)virt_base,
 	
 				res->start, size, -1);
 	
 	if (ret < 0) {

-		gen_pool_destroy(sram->pool);

Right, thanks.

quoted

+		if (sram->clk)
+			clk_disable_unprepare(sram->clk);

 		return ret;
 	
 	}

In light of the following patch, I'd rather move the
clk_prepare_enable() call after gen_pool_add_virt() and its error path.

I'm not sure, but isn't moving the clock enablement below the pool allocation 
producing a race condition?

I.e. can the case happen that some other part wants to allocate part of the 
newly generated pool already, while the subsequent gen_pool_add_virt calls 
from the following patch are still running? ... And what will happen in this 
case, when the sram clock is still disabled?


Thanks
Heiko
_______________________________________________
devicetree-discuss mailing list
devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss