On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 10:24 AM Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 03:21:00PM +0000, Frank Li wrote:
> > +static int ddr_perf_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +{
> > + struct ddr_pmu *pmu;
> > + struct device_node *np;
> > + void __iomem *base;
> > + char *name;
> > + int num;
> > + int ret;
> > + int irq;
> > +
> > + base = devm_platform_ioremap_resource(pdev, 0);
> > + if (IS_ERR(base))
> > + return PTR_ERR(base);
> > +
> > + np = pdev->dev.of_node;
> > +
> > + pmu = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*pmu), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!pmu)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > + num = ddr_perf_init(pmu, base, &pdev->dev);
> > +
> > + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, pmu);
> > +
> > + name = devm_kasprintf(&pdev->dev, GFP_KERNEL, "imx_ddr%d", num);
>
> Still not happy with this.
is imx_ddr_pmu%d okay?
>
> Will
