Hello.
On 26-01-2013 6:45, Robert Tivy wrote:
Added a new remoteproc platform device for DA8XX. Contains CMA-based
reservation of physical memory block. A new kernel command-line
parameter has been added to allow boot-time specification of the
physical memory block.
No signoff again.
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-davinci/devices-da8xx.c b/arch/arm/mach-davinci/devices-da8xx.c
index fb2f51b..a455e5c 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-davinci/devices-da8xx.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-davinci/devices-da8xx.c
[...]
@@ -706,6 +706,96 @@ int __init da850_register_mmcsd1(struct davinci_mmc_config *config)
}
#endif
+static struct resource da8xx_rproc_resources[] = {
+ { /* DSP boot address */
+ .start = DA8XX_SYSCFG0_BASE + DA8XX_HOST1CFG_REG,
+ .end = DA8XX_SYSCFG0_BASE + DA8XX_HOST1CFG_REG + 3,
+ .flags = IORESOURCE_MEM,
+ },
+ { /* DSP interrupt registers */
+ .start = DA8XX_SYSCFG0_BASE + DA8XX_CHIPSIG_REG,
+ .end = DA8XX_SYSCFG0_BASE + DA8XX_CHIPSIG_REG + 7,
+ .flags = IORESOURCE_MEM,
Does it really make sense to pass these as 2 resources -- they have the
same base address?
+int __init da8xx_register_rproc(void)
+{
+ int ret;
+
+ ret = platform_device_register(&da8xx_dsp);
+ if (ret) {
+ pr_err("%s: platform_device_register: %d\n", __func__, ret);
Better message would be "can't register DSP device".
+
Empty line hardly needed here.
+ return ret;
Not needed here, just move it outside the {} to replace 'return 0'.
+ }
+
+ return 0;
+};
+
WBR, Sergei
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
