On 01/07/2014 07:05 AM, Peter De Schrijver wrote: > On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 09:32:24PM +0100, Stephen Warren wrote: >> On 12/24/2013 06:32 AM, Peter De Schrijver wrote: >>> Implement fuse driver for Tegra20, Tegra30, Tegra114 and Tegra124. >>> diff --git a/drivers/misc/fuse/tegra/fuse-tegra20.c b/drivers/misc/fuse/tegra/fuse-tegra20.c >> >>> +static int fuse_size; >> >> I don't think that's used. >> >>> +static u32 tegra20_fuse_readl(const unsigned int offset) >> ... >>> + ret = tegra_apb_readl_using_dma(fuse_phys + FUSE_BEGIN + offset, &val); >> >> Shouldn't this use the generic tegra_apb_readl(), so that it works >> irrespective of whether the Tegra20 APB DMA driver is available? > > tegra_apb_readl() doesn't work reliably on Tegra20 for reading the fuses. > So if the Tegra20 APB DMA, this driver should also be unavailable. There's no "depends TEGRA20_APB_DMA" in the Kconfig. Perhaps ARCH_TEGRA_2x_SOC or FUSE_TEGRA should "select TEGRA20_APB_DMA"? >>> +static int tegra_fuse_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >> ... >>> + fuse_randomness(); >> >> If this is a driver, and particularly if this could be in a module, is >> there any guarantee at all that fuse_randomness() gets called early >> enough to be useful? > > For a module this might be true yes... Should we disallow this making a > module? That would simplify things, I expect... -- 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
