Hi Hans,
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Update simplefb to support the new preferred location for simplefb dt nodes
> under /chosen.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/video/fbdev/simplefb.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/video/fbdev/simplefb.c b/drivers/video/fbdev/simplefb.c
> index cd96edd..be7d288 100644
> --- a/drivers/video/fbdev/simplefb.c
> +++ b/drivers/video/fbdev/simplefb.c
> @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
> #include <linux/platform_data/simplefb.h>
> #include <linux/platform_device.h>
> #include <linux/clk-provider.h>
> +#include <linux/of_platform.h>
>
> static struct fb_fix_screeninfo simplefb_fix = {
> .id = "simple",
> @@ -385,7 +386,37 @@ static struct platform_driver simplefb_driver = {
> .probe = simplefb_probe,
> .remove = simplefb_remove,
> };
> -module_platform_driver(simplefb_driver);
> +
> +static int __init simplefb_init(void)
> +{
> + int i, ret;
> + char name[16];
> + struct device_node *np;
> +
> + ret = platform_driver_register(&simplefb_driver);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + for (i = 0; ; i++) {
> + snprintf(name, sizeof(name), "framebuffer%d", i);
This smells like an infinite loop: we can be pretty sure that no
hardware will ever exist with more than 9999 (I think?) framebuffers,
however if that ever happens this'll loop until it runs out of RAM.
Maybe add a suitably high limit to the for loop?
Thanks,
--
Julian Calaby
Email: julian.calaby@xxxxxxxxx
Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/
--
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
