2016-11-21 17:33 GMT+01:00 Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@xxxxxx>:
> On Monday 31 October 2016 08:15 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>> +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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
