Hi Bartosz, Sekhar,

On 21/11/16 16:48, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:

2016-11-21 17:33 GMT+01:00 Sekhar Nori [off-list ref]:

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_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.

As it happens, that was already proposed last week, for much the same
reason:

http://www.mail-archive.com/linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org/msg111395.html

Robin.

Best regards,
Bartosz Golaszewski

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel