Hi Frank,
On Tuesday 22 November 2016 07:13 AM, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 11/21/16 08:33, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>> 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_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
--
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
