On 10/26, walter harms wrote:
>
>
> Am 25.10.2016 22:35, schrieb Stephen Boyd:
> > On 10/25, walter harms wrote:
> >> Am 24.10.2016 22:43, schrieb Christophe JAILLET:
> >>> @@ -220,6 +218,12 @@ static void __init _of_pll_clk_init(struct device_node *node, bool pllctrl)
> >>>
> >>> out:
> >>> pr_err("%s: error initializing pll %s\n", __func__, node->name);
> >>> + if (pll_data->pllm)
> >>> + iounmap(pll_data->pllm);
> >>> + if (pll_data->pll_ctl0)
> >>> + iounmap(pll_data->pll_ctl0);
> >>> + if (pll_data->pllod)
> >>> + iounmap(pll_data->pllod);
> >>> kfree(pll_data);
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>
> >> IMHO calles the iounmap() need no check for NULL.
> >>
> >
> > ARM doesn't seem to check for NULL there though. So that would be
> > a bug.
> >
> > It would be nice to remove the checks though. Perhaps someone
> > could do that by unifying ionumap into asm-generic with the NULL
> > check and then have architecture specific functions for the rest
> > of it?
> >
>
> Is there a specific reason not to check ?
> It seems not wise to have different behavior across architectures.
>
I have no idea. Patches welcome.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
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
