On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 10:41:13AM -0500, Zhi Li wrote:
> On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 10:35 AM Zhi Li <lznuaa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > 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?
>
> imx_ddr%d_pmu look like more reasonable.
Sorry, it's a bit subtle, but please use "imx8" instead of "imx" since
they may change the thing completely in a future revision of the SoC. That's
why I suggested "imx8_ddr" in my reply on the previous version of the patch
(although it appears I somehow managed to drop the CC line in my reply, so
it only went to your gmail address).
Will
