Hi Julia,
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 12:20:37PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> From: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@xxxxxxx>
>
> Use devm_ioremap_resource instead of devm_request_and_ioremap.
>
> This was partly done using the semantic patch
> scripts/coccinelle/api/devm_ioremap_resource.cocci
>
> The error-handling code on the call to platform_get_resource was removed
> manually, and the initialization of smmu->size was manually moved lower, to
> take advantage of the NULL test on res performed by devm_ioremap_resource.
>
> Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@xxxxxxx>
>
> ---
> drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c | 11 +++--------
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
> index ebd0a4c..dd91465 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
> @@ -1761,15 +1761,10 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_dt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> smmu->dev = dev;
>
> res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
> - if (!res) {
> - dev_err(dev, "missing base address/size\n");
> - return -ENODEV;
> - }
> -
> + smmu->base = devm_ioremap_resource(dev, res);
> + if (IS_ERR(smmu->base))
> + return PTR_ERR(smmu->base);
> smmu->size = resource_size(res);
> - smmu->base = devm_request_and_ioremap(dev, res);
> - if (!smmu->base)
> - return -EADDRNOTAVAIL;
This does mean we trade arguably more useful error codes for the catch-all
-EINVAL, but the code ends up looking neater so I can be swayed either way.
Is this part of a series you're dealing with, or would you like me to take
this (I already sent my SMMU patches for 3.12)?
Cheers,
Will
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
