Hi Steve,
On 2/26/2011 3:39 AM, Stepan Moskovchenko wrote:
> On 2/24/2011 11:29 PM, Trilok Soni wrote:
>> Hi Steve,
>
> Hello
>
>>> @@ -130,117 +131,134 @@ static int msm_iommu_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> {
>>> struct resource *r, *r2;
>>> struct clk *iommu_clk;
>>> + struct clk *iommu_pclk;
>>> struct msm_iommu_drvdata *drvdata;
>>> struct msm_iommu_dev *iommu_dev = pdev->dev.platform_data;
>> const please.
>>
>
> I am not clear on what you mean. Please be more specific here.
I mean
const struct msm_iommu_dev *iommu_dev = pdev->dev.platform_data;
Now I see that this change is not part of this patch so you can ignore my comment.
>
>>> + iommu_pclk = clk_get(NULL, "smmu_pclk");
>>> + if (IS_ERR(iommu_pclk)) {
>>> + ret = -ENODEV;
>>> + goto fail;
>>> + }
>> I am not a big fan of this when you have the "device" around. You should just do
>>
>> iommu_pclk = clk_get(&pdev->dev, NULL);
>>
>> ...error logic...
>>
>> iommu_clk = clk_get(&pdev->dev, "iommu_clk");
>>
>> ...error logic...
>>
>
> The pclk is a "special" bus clock and does not have a specific device instance associated with it, so passing a device would not be appropriate in this case. I pass the device for other clocks that are indeed associated with devices, but this is not one of them. I suppose we could create 11 or 12 aliases for the pclk and associate it with all the IOMMU devices, but I would prefer to avoid doing that as I believe the current approach is cleaner.
ok.
>
>>> - ret = -EBUSY;
>>> - goto fail;
>>> - }
>>> + len = r->end - r->start + 1;
>>
>> resource_size please.
>>
>
> Ok
Thanks.
---Trilok Soni
--
Sent by a consultant of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
