Hi Bartosz, Sekhar,
On 21/11/16 16:48, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> 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.
As it happens, that was already proposed last week, for much the same
reason:
http://www.mail-archive.com/linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg111395.html
Robin.
>
> Best regards,
> Bartosz Golaszewski
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>
--
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
