Hi Suman,
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Suman Anna <s-anna@xxxxxx> wrote:
> static int omap_hwspinlock_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> {
> - struct hwspinlock_pdata *pdata = pdev->dev.platform_data;
> + struct device_node *node = pdev->dev.of_node;
> struct hwspinlock_device *bank;
> struct hwspinlock *hwlock;
> struct resource *res;
> void __iomem *io_base;
> - int num_locks, i, ret;
> + int num_locks, i, ret, base_id;
>
> - if (!pdata)
> + if (!node)
> return -ENODEV;
>
> + ret = of_hwspin_lock_get_base_id(node);
> + if (ret < 0 && ret != -EINVAL)
> + return -ENODEV;
> + base_id = (ret > 0 ? ret : 0);
Does this mean you allow nodes not to have the base_id property? How
do we protect against multiple nodes not having a base_id property
then?
Implicitly assuming a base_id value (zero in this case) may not be always safe.
Thanks,
Ohad.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
