Hi Ohad,
On 07/01/2014 07:48 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> Hi Suman,
>
> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 3:34 AM, Suman Anna <s-anna@xxxxxx> wrote:
>> static int omap_hwspinlock_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> {
>> - struct hwspinlock_pdata *pdata = pdev->dev.platform_data;
>> + struct device_node *node = pdev->dev.of_node;
>> struct hwspinlock_device *bank;
>> struct hwspinlock *hwlock;
>> struct resource *res;
>> void __iomem *io_base;
>> int num_locks, i, ret;
>> + int base_id = 0;
>
> We shouldn't implicitly assume base_id is zero: let's explicitly
> protect against potential subsequent invocations of
> omap_hwspinlock_probe.
>
Yeah, I did this since we only had 1 instance, and used the same value
as used in the non-DT legacy code. Once I fold back Patch 8 that adds
the hwlock-base-id property, this will be assigned by reading that property.
regards
Suman
--
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
